7- 


Stom  f  0e  £ifirar£  of 

(professor  Wifftam  ^nrjj  (Breen 

Q&equeaf0eo  fig  0im  to 
f  0e  feifirarg  of 

(prtncefon  £0eofo<jtcaf  ^eminarjj 


so 

/ 1  o  5-7 


¥W&? 


/ 


TREATISE 


ON 


JUSTIFICATION. 


BY 
GEORGE  JITNKUY,  D.  D. 

PRESIDENT    OF    LAFAYETTE    COLLEGE,    EASTON,    PENNA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
J.  Whetham,  No.  142,  Chesnut  Stiieet. 

1839. 


Entered,  according  to  the  act  of  Congress, 

By  GEORGE  JUNKIN, 

in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  for  the   Eastern   District 

of  Pennsylvania. 


PRIXTEB  AT  LAFATETTE  COLLEGE  PRESS,  C  PRIEST,  FOREMAW. 


PREFACE 


That  an  age,  claiming  distinction  above   most,  which 
have  preceded  it,  for  benevolent  enterprise  in   dissemi- 
nating the  Bible  and  Christianity,  should,  notwithstand- 
ing,   be    characterized  by  indistinct  views  of  the  great 
doctrines  of  religion,  may  at  first  seem  contradictory. 
Such,  however,  it  appears  to  me,  is  the  true  state  of  the 
christian  world  at  present.     A  general  laxness  prevails 
as  to  doctrinal  opinions.       Indeed,  not  unfrequently,  in- 
difference  is  deemed  a  virtue  ;  and   a   man   felicitates 
himself  upon  his  liberality,  because  he  feels  no  peculiar 
attachment  to  any  particular  religious  creed.     Opinions 
in  politics  are  of  great  consequence — opinions  in  law,  in 
medicine,  in  science,  in  the  arts  ;  every  where  but  in  re- 
ligion, to  be  without  any  fixed  opinions,  is  deemed  dis- 
honourable and  unworthy  of  a  noble  and  generous  spirit. 
There  is  no   illiberality  in  every  other  department  of 
thought  and  enterprise,  in  a  man's  holding  and  defend- 
ing a  series  of  fixed  doctrines  ;  but  by  a  strange  incon- 
sistency,  this  age  denounces  as  bigotry  and  narrowness 
of  spirit,  the  steadfast  maintainance  of  the  revealed  sys- 
tem of  religious  truth.     This  feature  of  the  age — which 
may  be  correctly  designated  the  bigotry  of  liberalism — 
may  be  traced  in  indistinct  lines  on  the  fair  countenance 
of  the  daughter  of  Zion,  and  rudely  defines  the  measure 
of  her  conformity  to  this  world.     Hence  the  diminished 
attention  to  doctrines.     Hence  the  singular  fact,  that  in 
a   land   teeming  with  Bibles,   and  Bible  Societies,   and 
Bible  Classes,  and   helps  to  Bible  interpretation,   Bible 
exposition    is   nearly  banished   from   all   their  pulpits. 
What  pastor  ever  thinks  of  expounding  the  sacred  books 
in  any  continuous  series  of  exercises  ?     What  congrega- 
tion would  endure  an  uninterrupted  course  of  lectures  on 
any  portion  of  scripture  ?     What  preacher  would  ven- 
ture to  suspend  his  reputation  on  the  delivery  of  fifty-two 


tl  PREFACE. 

lectures  in  the  year  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  oi* 
that  to  the  Hebrews  ?  My  field  of  observation  is  very 
limited  ;  but  my  impression  is,  that  this  most  profitable 
description  of  pulpit  labour  has  sunk  into  general  ne- 
glect :  and  hence  the  deficiency  of  doctrinal  knowledge: 
and  hence  the  laxness  of  opinion  :  and  hence  the  dis- 
tractions and  disputations  in  the  church.  With  the  an- 
cient practice  of  lecturing  continuously  on  some  book  of 
scripture,  has  fallen  into  disuse  the  reading  of  the  old 
standard  doctrinal  writers.  Books  are  so  easily  made, 
and  so  much  under  the  dominion  of  fashion,  that  a  lea* 
ther  cover,  enclosing  400  pages,  is  opened  reluctantly 
and  soon  closed,  lest  its  musty  odor  should  become  of- 
fensive. We  are  hence  obliged,  though  at  some  risk, 
to  put  the  old  wine  into  new  bottles.  Hence  the  pre- 
sent publication.  Could  Boston  and  Owen,  and  Wither- 
spoon  and  Edwards,  find  studious  readers,  it  were  un- 
necessary to  press  this  little  work  upon  public  attention. 
The  author,  apprehensive  that  the  subject  on  which  he 
treats  is  much  misunderstood — that  it  is  of  prime  im- 
portance— that  ignorance  of  it  leads  to  serious  conse- 
quencs — and  that  a  new  book,  from  almost  any  source, 
will,  be  more  likely  to  be  read  than  the  more  weighty 
and  laboured  productions  of  by-gone  days,  lias  conceived 
the  present  plan,  and  now  offers  it  to  the  christian  pub- 
lic. 

There  is  no  new  doctrine  in  these  pages.  There  is 
very  little  new  illustration.  There  is,  he  hopes,  some 
novelty  in  the  modes  of  argumentation,  and  perhaps  of 
exposition.  He  also  supposes  that  the  plan  of  the  dis- 
cussion has  some  claims  to  originality  ;  whether  this  be 
so,  and  whether  it  he  an  advantage,  the  reader  must 
judge.  As  to  method,  the  scheme  of  the  treatise  is  syn- 
thetic, as  will  be  perceived  by  the  scholar,  upon  a  mere 
inspection  of  the  contents.  It  begins  with  the  simple 
elements  of  truth,  and  ascends  to  the  highest  doctrines  of 
the  moral  system. 

If  there  is  any  thing  peculiar  in  the  general  design  of 
the  work,  distinguishing  it  from  other  treatises  on  Justi- 
fication, it  will  be  found  in  the  identification — or  at  least 
the  attempt  to  identify  the  great  principles  of  God's  co- 


PREFACE*  HI 

Tenants  with  the  first  Adam  and  the  second,  and  their 
use,  in  man's  justification,  with  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  moral  rule,  whose  application  in  human  govern- 
ment must  and  will  secure  the  highest  measure  of  human 
freedom  and  happiness.  I  have  laboured,  with  what 
success  the  reader  will  judge,  to  make  it  appear  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible,  embraced  in  my  subject,  contain 
the  very  essence  of  all  morality,  and  form  the  substra- 
tum of  all  sound,  social,  civil  and  political  government — 
that  there  are  not  two  systems  of  morality ;  one  for  the 
christian  and  one  for  the  citizen  ;  one  for  heaven  and 
the  visible  church,  its  vestibule,  and  another  for  earth 
and  the  powers  of  this  world.  But,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  the  moral  being,  man,  is  a  unity ;  and  all  the 
laws  that  can  bind  his  conscience,  are  found  in  the  Bi- 
ble :  and  their  application  to  him  as  a  member  of  civil 
society,  constitutes  government.  Thus,  it  appears  to 
me,  much  gain  must  accrue  to  the  cause  of  truth,  by 
forcing  away  from  man  the  delusion  of  a  two-fold  sys- 
tem of  morals,  wholly  or  largely  dissociate  from  each 
other :  and  shutting  them  up  to  the  conviction,  that  the 
same  identical  doctrines  which  constitute  the  substratum 
of  republican  government  and  social  order,  are  embraced 
in  Christianity,  and  by  them  all  men  will  be  judged  in 
the  great  day. 

In  the  exposition  of  scripture,  I  have  followed  the 
method  of  induction — referring  to  the  parallel  texts,  and 
collating  all  the  passages  where  a  term  or  phrase  occurs  ; 
and  thus  enabling  the  reader  to  make  scripture  the  in- 
terpreter of  scripture,  it  has  been  my  object,  by  this 
method,  to  bring  down  even  verbal  criticism ;  and  that 
where  the  originals  are  concerned,  to  the  comprehension 
of  the  simple  English  reader.  I  have  thought  that  such 
criticism  is  not  only  useful,  but  may  be  entertaining  and 
interesting  to  such  readers.  The  best  evidence  of  good 
preaching  is,  that  it  sets  all  hearers  to  search  the  Bible. 
The  hope  is  entertained,  that  such  critical  examinations 
as  are  interspersed  among  the  following  pages,  may  ope- 
rate in  this  way. 

Another  feature  of  the  plan,  is  its  philosophical  ar- 
rangement.   The  design  has  been  to  connect  the  various 


IV  PREFACE. 

parts  together  in  such  manner  as  will  be  most  easily  fol- 
lowed up.  For  this  reason,  I  have  endeavoured  to  ar- 
range the  matter,  according  to  those  laws  of  mind,  bv 
which  the  train  of  thought  is  regulated:  so  that  everv 
preceding  vehicle,  with  its  treasure,  shall  have  a  certain 
aptitude  to  draw  alter  it  the  one  precisely  adapted  to  it. 
and  which  will  secure  a  similar  sequence. 

From  this,  and  the  occasional  indulgence  in  argumen- 
tation, and  even  in  metaphysical  disquisition  and  mental 
philosophy,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  thought  that  the  mass 
of  plain  readers  will  not  be  accommodated:  whereas, 
for  them  chiefly  has  the  book  been  written.  Should 
this  arise  as  an  odjection,  I  reply,  that  sound  philosophy 
is  nothing 'more  than  common  sense.  Let  the  mental 
philosopher  and  metaphysician  keep  out  technical  terms, 
or  explain  them  clearly,  and  the  common  mind  will 
comprehend  his  philosophy.  It  is  moreover  undeniable, 
that  the  moral  system  of  the  Bible  is  the  most  stupen- 
dously grand  system  of  philosophy  the.  world  has  ever 
beheld.  Christianity  is  a  system  of  practical  and  ex- 
perimental philosophy.  Its  doctrines  are  founded  on 
its  facts,  and  1  never  could  see  any  reason  why  the 
christian  ministry — the  authorised  teachers  of  this 
philosophy,  should  labour  to  conceal  its  beauties  and 
its  glorv,  by  presenting  only  detached  parts  of  the 
system,  e  t  any  well  directed  efforts   at  combining 

part  with  par;,  that  the  whole  edifice  might  rise,  in  its 
beauty  and  grandeur,  before  the  admiring  eyes  of  those 
who  are  to  dwell  therein  forever. 

Besides  it  is  the  duty  of  the  ministry  to  go  before  the 
flock.  There  ought  to  be  constantly  an  ascending  move- 
ment along  the  scale  of  intelligence.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  jnst  objections  to  well  timed  and  clear  criti- 
cism ;  nor,  occasionally,  to  the  philosophical  arrange- 
ment and  discussion  of  such  parts  of  the  subject  as  admit, 
and,  indeed,  require  it. 

As  to  style,  plainness  has  been  studied,  perhaps  to  a 
fault  ;  and  conciseness  may  sometimes  run  into  obscu- 
rity. 

A  scheme  of  the  work  is  prefixed.  It  consists  of  the 
simple  headings  of  the  chapters  and  sections,  and  in  a 


PREFACE.  V 

few  instances  the  sub-sections,    with   reference  for  the 
chapters  to  the  pages  respectively. 

Appended  is  an  alphabetical  index  of  subjects  which 
will  be  found  of  considerable  practical  benefit :  and  also 
a  table  of  texts,  which  have  been  incidentally  less  or 
more  illustrated  and  explained. 

With  these  remarks,  the  author  commends  this  little 
performance  to  the  indulgence  of  his  kind  readers — en- 
treating them  to  bear  in  mind,  that  it  has  been  prepared 
in  the  hurried  intervals  of  a  laborious  avocation;  and 
has  been  hastened  through  the  press  under  circumstances 
very  unfavourable  to  accuracy.  Imperfect  as  it  and  all 
human  productions  are,  he  entrusts  it  to  the  guidance  of 
that  gracious  Saviour,  whose  glory  it  is  designed  to 
promote ;  hoping,  praying  and  believing,  that  He  will 
make  it  a  means  of  blessing  to  many  who  shall  be 
found,  in  the  great  day  of  final  accounts,  arrayed  with 
him  in  the  spotless  robes  of  Immanuel's  Righteous- 
ness. 


THE  CONTENTS  OR  GENERAL  SCHEME. 


CHAPTER  I.— page  13. 
On  the  moral  government  of  God  in  general. 


Section  I. — The  Creator  absolutely  supreme. 
Sjec.  II.  The  Creature  absolutely  dependent. 

Sec.  III.         The  will  of  God  is  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation. 
Sec.  IV.  The  will  of  God  revealed  is  the  rule  of  duty. 

Sec.  V.  Rational  intelligence  necessary  to  moral  agency. 

Sec.  VI.  Volition,  or  choice  is  necessary  to  moral  agency. 

Sec.  VII.         A  moral  sense  is  necessary  to  a  moral  agent. 
Sec.  VIII.        Self-love,   or  the   desire  of  happiness  implied  in 

moral  government. 
Sec.  IX.  Rewards   and    punishments  are   addressed  to  the 

principle  of  self-love  and  are  essential  to  the  idea 

of  moral  government. 
Sec.  X.  A  brief  summary. 


CHAPTER  II— p.  37. 

On  the  particular  modifications  of  moral  government \ 

as  it  was  extended  over  man  in  his  primitive 

condition  ;  or  the  Covenant  of  works. 


Sec.  I.  The  primeval  state  of  man,  anterior  to  the  formation 

of  the  covenant,  considered  intellectually,  mor- 
ally and  legally. 

Sec.  II.  Of  a  covenant  in  general. 

Sec.  III.  Of  God's  covenant  with  Adam. 


VIII  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III— p.  50. 

On  the  extent  of  the  Covenant ;  or  the  representative 
Character  of  Ji dam. 

Sec.  I.  The  general  doctrine  of  representation. 

Sec.  II.  This  doctrine  of  Representation  is  taught  in  the  laws 

of  nature  and  is  essential  to  man's  social  ex- 
istence. 

Sec.  III.  Adam  acted  in  the  covenant  as  the  representative 

of  all  human  persons — he  was  the  moral  head  of 
the  race. 

Sec.  IV  The  mode  of  constituting  the  representative  relation. 

Sec.  V.  The  moral  relation  of  Adam  to  his  posterity  ;    viz  : 

as  head  of  the  covenant — is  principal ;  and  his 
natural  relation  is  subservient  thereto ;  and  not 
vice  versa. 

CHAPTER  IV.— p.  72. 

The  definition  of  leading  terms  Just,  Righteous,  Right- 
eousness, Justify  and  Justification. 

CHAPTER  V.— p.  82. 

The  requisites  to  Adam 's  justification  by  the  Covenant 

of  works. 

Sec.  I.  Innocence. 

Sec.  II.  On  the  positive  requirements  of  the  covenant. 

Sec.  III.  The  limit  of  probation. 

Sec.  IV.  Righteousness  the  grand  requisite. 

CHAPTER  VI.— p  87. 

On  the  breach  of  the  covenant  and  the  consequent  ad- 
ditional requisite  to  Adain  s  justification. 

Sec.  I.  God's   condescension   calculated  to   secure   man's 

affections. 

Sec.  II.  The  mysterious  fact — man's  fall,  occasioned  through 

false  views  in  the  mind. 

Sec.  III.         A  loss  of  confidence  in  God,  led  to  the  fall. 

Sec.  IV.  The  effects  of  sin  upon  the  legal  relations  and  liabil- 
ities of  Adam. 


CONTENTS.  IX 

CHAPTER  VII.— p  94. 

On  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin,  to  himself  and  to 

his  posterity,  physically,  intellectually  and 

morally. 

Sec  I.  The  physical  constitution  of  the  whole  race  is  de- 

ranged, injured  and  enfeebled  by  sin. 

Sec.  II.  Adam  and  all  his  children  have  suffered  in  their  in- 

tellectual powers  by  the  fall. 

Sec  III.  The  moral  affections  of  Adam  and  his  posterity  be- 
came depraved  by  his  sin. 

CHAPTER  VIII.— p  104. 
On  Original  Sin. 

Sec  I.  The  definition  of  the  terms. 

Sec  II.  The  definition  of  the  thing. 

Sec.  III.         Of  Imputation. 
Sec  IV.         Of  Condemnation. 
Sec  V.  Of  Guilt. 

Sec.  VI.         The  sin  of  Adam  is  rightfully  imputed  to  his  poster- 
ity.    (1)  The  acts  of  one  are  imputed  to  another. 

(2)  Objection — not  until  that  other  acts  himself. 

(3)  The  a  posteriori  argument.  (4)  Objections — 
infants  sin  before  birth.  (5)  Infant  sufferings  are 
disciplinary. 

CHAPTER  IX.— p  127. 

Original  Sin — Argument — an  exposition  of  Romans 

V.  12—21. 

CHAPTER  X.— p  139. 

Original  Sin — proved  from  the  salvation  of  those  that 

die  in  infancy. 

Sec  I.  Infants  go  to  heaven. 

Sec.  II.  These  infants  come  to  eternal  happiness  through 

Jesus  Christ  our  Lord — they  are  saved  and  are 
indebted  to  Jesus  for  their  salvation. 


CONTENTS. 


Sec.  III.  Only  sinners  can  be  saved. 

Sec.  IV.  Infants  are  guilty,  condemned,  polluted  and  sinful 

beings. 


CHAPTER  XL— p  152. 

The  utter  inability  of  man  in  his  fallen  state,  to  meet 

the  requirements  of  law,  and  thereby  to  restore 

himself  to  the  favour  of  God. 

Sec.  I.  The  general  notion  of  ability  and  inability. 

Sec.  II.  The  common  distinction  of  natural  and  moral  ina- 

bility stated. 

Sec.  III.  Objections  to  the  natural  ability  and  moral  inability 
doctrine. 

Sec.  IV.         Man's  inability  as  taught  in  the  Bible. 


CHAPTER  XII— p  177. 

The  gospel  reveals  the  only  effectual  remedy  for  the 
evils  of  the  broken  Covenant. 


Sec.  I.  The  gospel  a  remedial  law, 

Sec,  II.  The  gospel,  like  every  remedial  law,  establishes  the 

principle  of  the  original  institute. 

Sec  IV.  It  must  remedy  the  failure — must  make  amends  for 
the  positive  evils  under  the  original  institute. 

Sec.  V.  The  two  preceeding  grand  requisites  in  the  remedial 

law,  must  be  secured  on  the  principle  of  the 
original  institute ;  viz :  by  a  covenant  represen- 
tation. 

CHAHTER  XIII.— p  186. 

The  Covenant  of  Grace. 

Sbc.  I.  The  parties  are  two,  viz:    the   Father,  and  Jesus 

Christ,  his  Son. 
Sec  II.  This  covenant  is  gracious,  because  eternal. 

Sec,  III.  The  terms. 

Sec.  IV.  The  agreement. 


CONTENTS.  XI 


CHAPTER  XIV.— p  192. 
The  fulfilment  of  the  covenant. 

Sec  I.  Jesus  did  obey  the  precepts  of  the  law  of  God  and 

thus  fulfilled  all  righteousness. 
Sec.  II,  The  obedience  of  Christ  is  vicarious  ;    or,  in  other 

words,  he,  in  all   this  acted  for  his   people — 

representatively. 
Sec  III.  Jesus  did  satisfy  the  penal  claims  of  law  for  his  peo- 

ple— or  the  doctrine  of  atonement. 
Sec  IV.         The  doctrine  of  legal  substitution. 
Sec.  V.  This  doctrine  is  embodied  in  the  doctrine  of  atone- 

ment. 
Sec.  VI.  This  doctrine  proved  and  illustrated  by  the  typical 

sacrifices. 
Sec  VII.        This  doctrine  alone,  can  account  for  the    fact,  that 

that  Jesus  suffered,  bled  and  died. 
Sec.  VIII.       The  consequences  of  legal  substitutions,     1  To  the 

substitute.     2  To  the  principal.     3  To  God  the 

Father,  as  the  executor  of  law. 

CHAPTER  XV— p  219. 

The  extent  cf  the  Atonement. 
Sec,  I.  A  recapitulation  of  principles:   with  the  inference, 

that  the   atonement  is  as  long  and  as  broad  as 

the  salvotion  of  God. 
Sec  II.  The  same  proved  by  scriptural    sacrifices. 

Sec  III.  The  same  proved  by  the  common  sense  of  mankind. 

Sec   IV.         Proof  from  the  meaning  of  redemption. 

CHAPTER,  XVI.— p  227. 
Objections  against  a  limited  and  real  atonement. 

&Bc.  I.  Universalist's  objection — false  in  fact  and   no  valid 

objection. 

S-r-c.  II.  Theory  of  indefinite  atonement — two-fold  :    1   That 

Christ  died  for  all  men  alike.     2  That  he  died 
for  no  man  or  sat  of  men  at  all,  but  simpiy  to  sat- 
isfy public  justice. 

1,  The  former  runs  into  universalism — or  into 
the  2d,  which  is  an  abandonment  of  the  whole 
doctrine  of  atonement,     Remarks,    1   The  dis- 


XII  CONTENTS. 

Sec  II.  tinction  of  Justice  into  commutative,  distributive 

and  public  has  no  foundation  in  the  word  of  God. 
2,  Nor  in  sound  philosophy.  3,  Even  on  the 
distinction,  the  death  of  Christ  would  be  the 
most  horrible  injustice. 

Sec.  III.  The  intrinsic  sufficiency  of  the  atonement. 

Sec  IV.  But  did  not  Christ  die  in  some  sence   for  all  men? 

Answer.  No. 

Sec  V.  All  men  enjoy  a  respite  from  death  and  hell,  in  con- 

sequence of  Christ's  atonemnt, 

CHAPTER  XVIL— p  247. 

Objections  founded  on  particular  passages  of  scrip- 
ture, against  the  doctrine  of  limited  or  definite 
Atonement. 

Sec  I.  Arguments  from  the  general  term  world. 

Sec.  II.  The  argument  from  the  general  term  all  stated  and 

answered. 

CHAPTER  XVIII.— p  265, 

The  objection  against  strict  limited  atonement  founded 
upon  the  general  gospel  call,  stated  and  refuted. 

CHAHTET  XIX.— p  275, 
The  Saviour's  Intercession. 

Sec  I.  The  meaning  of  the  term  and  thing. 

Sec  II.  Christ's  plea    on  behalf  of  his  people. 

Sec  III.  Christ's  claim  on  behalf  of  his  people. 

CHAPTER  XX.— p  386, 
On  Saving  or  Justifying  Faith. 

Sec  I.  Faith  as  as  general  principle. 

Sec  II.  Faith  in  God  is  a  duty. 

Sec.  III.  Faith — saving  faith,  is  a  saving  grace. 

Sec  IV.  Difficulties  and  objections. 

(1)  If  the  act  of  believing  be  involuntary  it 
can  have  no  moral  character. 


CONTENTS.  XIII 

(2)  Your  view   of  faith,  makes  it  a  duty  of 
the  law. 

(3)  Such  faith  can  scarcely  be  called  even  the 
instrumental  cause  of  salvation. 

Skc.  V.  On  the  appropiiation  of  Faith. 

Sac.  VI.  The  object  of  saving  faith,  or  the  precise  thing  to 

be  believed. 
Sec,  VII,         Is  assurance  of  the  essence  of  faith  ? 
Skc.  VIII,       How  the  saved  are  united  actually  to  Christ, 
Skc.  IX.         The  doctrine  of  imputation  applied. 

* 

CHAPTER  XXL— p  311. 

Justification  secures  its  subjects  forever. 

CHAPTER  XXII.— p  316. 

Good  works — their  necessity  and  true  position. 

Skc.  I.  The  necessity  of  good  works, 

Skc.  II.  The  true  position  of  good  works. 


OJV  JUSTIFICATION. 

CHAPTER  I. 

ON  THE  MORAL  GOVERNMENT  OF  GOD  IN  GENERAL. 

SECTION  I. 

The  Creator,  Absolutely  Supreme. 

By  an  original  law  of  our  being,  we  are  led  to  infer 
causes  from  their  effects.  Changes  are  constantly  oc- 
curring around  us.  We  observe  them.  "We  look  for 
their  causes  among  the  events  of  the  past.  We  look  for 
their  effects  among  the  contingencies  of  the  future.  We 
reason  from  the  one  to  the  other  and  the  thought  rarely 
occurs  to  our  minds ;  that,  perhaps,  after  all,  there  is  no 
such  connexion  as  is  implied  in  the  terms  cause  and  ef- 
fect. The  one  event  indeed  follows  the  other  in  almost 
uniform  succession,  but  who  can  shew  a  reason  for  it? 
Who  can  reveal  the  chain  and  display  to  our  view  the 
links  of  connexion  ?  Can  the  wise  men  of  this  world  un- 
veil the  mysteries  of  nature  ?  Can  Newton,  with  all  his 
philosophy,  tell  us  why  a  stone,  projected  upwards,  de- 
scends to  the  earth  ?  If  then  human  wisdom  utterly  fails, 
in  the  simplest  operations  of  nature — if  man  with  all  his 
boasted  knowledge  cannot  explain  the  nature  of  cause 
and  effect,  and  shew  in  what  it  lies,  what  then?  Will 
he  deny  all  causation  ?  Will  he  refuse  to  act  on  the  be- 
lief, that  certain  things  do  always  succeed  certain  other 
things  ?  Will  he  refuse  to  reason  and  thereby  to  acquire 
knowledge  ?  Because  he  cannot  dive  to  the  bottom  and 
bring  up,  from  the  unfathomable  stores  of  nature,  all  her 
pearls  and  gold,  will  he  refuse  to  pick  up  beauteous  peb- 
bles on  the  strand  ? 

No  :  despite  of  all  his  pride,  he  is  constrained  to  rea- 
2 


14  THE    CREATOR  ABSOLUTELY  SUPREME. 

son  from  effects  to  causes,  and  from  causes  to  effects. 
Assuming  the  existence  of  a  connextion,  yet  ignorant  of 
what  it  is  and  how  it  operates,  he  proceeds  to  reason, 
and  does  reason,  as  correctly  perhaps  as  if  he  knew  the 
whole  mystery,  and  rests  in  his  conclusions  with  perfect 
confidence.  On  this  very  process  of  reasoning  depend  all 
our  conclusions  in  reference  to  the  business  of  this  life. 
The  farmer  sows  his  grain  ;  the  merchant  freights  his 
ships  ;  the  manufacturer  purchases  his  materials  and  his 
machinery — all  because  they  believe  that  causes  and  ef- 
fects are  connected  together  and  will  continue  to  follow 
each  other  to  the  end. 

Thus  it  is  we  trace  such  effects  to  their  causes  and 
these  again  to  their  causes,  and  these  again  to  theirs, 
and  so  at  last  reach  the  conclusion,  that  a  Great  First 
Cause  there  must  be  "of  causes  mighty,  cause  uncaus- 
ed"— "  whose  kingdom  ruleth  over  all"  and  "  is  an  ev- 
erlasting kingdom  and  his  dominion  endureth  throughout 
all  generations.— The  eyes  of  all  wait  upon  thee ;  and 
thou  givest  them  their  meat  in  due  season."  This  grand 
argument,  in  proof  of  the  divine  existence,  depends  for 
its  whole  force  upon  that  law  of  our  minds,  by  which 
we  are  irresistably  impelled  to  believe  that  every  effect 
must  have  a  cause.  This  argument  is  accounted  irre- 
fragably  conclusive.  All  men  admit  its  force  :  to  have 
stated  it  clearly  has  enrolled  Bishop  Butler  among  the 
benefactors  of  the  human  race. 

But  now,  if  the  argument,  which  follows  up  the 
depedence  of  material  effects  upon  their  causes,  brings 
us  to  such  a  satisfactory  conclusion  ;  much  more,  shall 
not  that  which  begins  with  the  dependence  of  mind  up- 
on mind,  lead  to  results  most  perfectly  satisfactory? 
If  matter  could  not  create  itself,  could  spirit  ?  Ignorant  of 
a  cause  adequate  to  the  production  of  matter,  the  ancient 
heathen  philosophers  asumed  its  eternity.  How  much 
more  reasonably  might  the  inference  be  deduced,  that 
spirit  is  eternal?  Our  souls  have  existed  from  eter- 
nity, or  they  have  been  created  by  ourselves  or  by  some 
other  being.  For  the  belief  of  their  eternal  past  exis- 
tence we  have  no  evidence.  For  the  belief  of  their  self 
creation  we  have  not  capacity  ;   the  very  thought  is  ab- 


THE    CREATURE    ABSOLUTELY  DEPENDANT.  15 

surd.  For  the  belief  of  their  creation  by  an  uncreated 
First  Cause,  we  have  capacity,  and  evidence  adapted  to 
it.  The  belief  that  spirit  is  the  result  of  creating  power, 
is  as  full  and  perfect  as  that  matter  was  created.  God 
is  the  father  of  our  spirits,  in  a  sense  far  higher  than  that 
in  which  the  term  is  or  can  be  applied  to  signify  our  re- 
lation to  man.  He  formed  us  and  the  same  power  which 
produced  us  out  of  nothing,  sustains  the  existence  it 
commenced.     In  him  we  live  and  move  and  exist. 

Let  the  reader  mark  narrowly  the  emotions  of  his  own 
mind,  when  the  question  is  asked,  has  God  a  right  of 
absolute  control  over  all  the  creatures  of  his  hand? 
What  is  the  result?  Does  not  your  heart  revolt  at  the 
thought? — the  rights  of  God.  Who  is  this  that  talks 
about  rights  ?  And  dares  he  interrogate  the  Creator  on  a 
question  of  boundary  ?  Can  he  (without  impiety)  agitate 
the  subject  of  territorial  limits  ?  Will  he  venture  to  en- 
quire whether  God's  rights  over  him  and  all,  are  uncon- 
trolled and  absolute?  Has  not  the  potter  power  over  the 
clay  ?  Surely  if  any  truth  commends  itself,  as  it  were, 
intuitively  to  the  heart  and  conscience  of  man,  it  is  the 
absoluteness  of  the  divine  right,  authority,  power,  over 
all  created  existence. 

SECTION  IL 
The  Creature,  Absolutely  Dependant. 

This  is  but  the  counter-part  of  the  preceding — a  dif- 
ferent mode  of  expressing  the  same  thought.  He  "that 
formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him,"  sustaineth  that 
spirit  and  the  body  which  it  controls.  In  reference  to 
to  our  bodies  we  have  no  self-sustaining  power.  Is  his 
hand  withdrawn  ?  We  return  to  dust.  Equally  depend- 
ant upon  the  sustaining  power  of  God,  is  the  soul  of  man. 
Its  immortality  is  not  a  matter  of  physical  but  only  of 
moral  necessity.  It  can  no  more  exist  without  God 
than  the  body  can.  If  any  man  ask,  how  God  keeps  us 
in  being  ;  the  answer  must  be — we  know  not.  The  fact 
only  is  known.     Modes  of  existence  are  among  the  se- 


16  THE  WILL  OF  GOD  IS  THE  FOUNDATION* 

cret  things  that  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God.  And 
therefore  perhaps,  even  the  enquiry,  whether  the  mode 
of  dependence  of  rational  nature  and  of  material  sub- 
stance be  the  same,  may  be  improper.  Certainly,  at 
least,  wisdom  and  piety  both  dictate  the  exercise  of 
great  prudence  and  humility  in  its  prosecution. 

We  are  in  the  constant  habit  of  describing  the  govern- 
ment of  God  over  material  things,  under  the  notion  of 
laws  of  matter ;  and  sometimes  we  even  seem  to  think, 
that  when  we  have  given  names  to  the  different  opera- 
tions and  orders  of  things,  we  have  explained  them. 
The  truth  is  far  otherwise.  The  names  are  a  cover  for 
our  ignorance,  and  are  useful  only  as  arbitrary  signs  of 
the  things,  as  to  the  general  order  of  their  occurrence. 
They  explain  nothing.  Now  if  this  be  so  in  reference 
to  material  things,  how  much  more  may  we  expect  dif- 
ficulty in  forming  our  conceptions  and  communicating 
our  thoughts  about  the  laws  by  which  God  governs  the 
spiritual  world,  or  even  our  own  nature  consisting  of 
both  matter  and  spirit  ?  To  this  form  of  the  divine  ad- 
ministration we  apply  the  name  of  Moral  Government ; 
and  although  much  remains  inexplicable,  yet  the  de- 
pendence of  all  intelligent  creatures  upon  God,  is  no 
doubt  as  real,  as  that  of  the  brute  creation  and  of  inert 
matter.  To  point  out  some  leading  facts  and  principles 
is  what  we  propose  in  this  chapter ;  and  the  first  shall 
be  in  answer  to  the  question,  what  is  the  ground  of  mor-» 
al  obligation  ? 

SECTION  III. 
The  will  of  God  is  the  foundation  of  Moral  Obligation. 

The  first  proof  we  present  is  the  strong  presumption, 
arising  from  the  universal  practices  of  human  legislation. 
Under  all  forms  of  government  among  men,  from  the 
most  perfect  auctocracy,  to  the  purest  democracy,  the 
expressed  will  of  the  legislature — the  law-making  pow- 
er, is  authority — is  law.  So  fully  have  men  adopted 
this  principle,  that  they  very  often  forget  there  is  a  will 
superior  to  theirs,  by  which  they  are  bound  and  beyond 


OF  MORAL  OBLIGATION.  17 

which  they  cannot  legislate  with  the  hope  of  binding 
the  human  conscience.  And  this  is  father  evident  from 
the  fact,  that  the  interpreters  of  written  law  always  en- 
quire what  was  the  will  of  the  legislature  ?  What  did 
they  intend  by  the  language  ?  If  that  can  be  ascertained, 
there  is  an  end  to  the  controversy ;  the  law  is  settled 
and  must  be  obeyed.  In  other  words,  the  citizen  is 
bound  by  it. 

2dly.  That  the  will  of  God  is  the  basis  of  moral  obli- 
gation, may  be  argued  from  the  difficulty — the  impos- 
sibility of  establishing  any  other.  If  men  are  not  bound 
to  do  the  will  of  God,  because  it  is  his  will,  what  then 
is  the  true  reason  for  obedience  1  The  happiness  of  man, 
say  some.  Whatever  will  promote  human  enjoyment 
upon  the  whole  and  in  the  highest  degree,  is  right  and 
ought  to  be  done.  To  this  there  are  several  serious  ob- 
jections. 

First,  It  makes  the  creature's  happiness  the  supreme 
end  of  his  creation,  contrary  to  the  testimonies  of  God 
on  this  subject.  "  Even  every  one  that  is  called  by  my 
name ;  for  I  have  created  him  for  my  glory." — (Isa.  xliii. 
7.)  "All  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him." — 
(Col.  i.  16.)  "  Thou  has  created  all  things,  and  for  thy 
pleasure  they  are  and  were  created." — (Rev.  iv.  11,) 

A  second  objection  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  man, 
short  sighted  and  imperfect  in  knowledge,  could  never 
be  certain  whether  he  was  bound  to  do  a  particular  act 
or  not.  For  if  the  obligation  rests  in  its  adaptation  to  pro- 
mote his  happiness  upon  the  whole,  he  must  know  wheth- 
er it  will  so  operate  before  he  can  feel  the  obligation. 
But  can  man,  in  one  case  out  of  a  hundred,  determine 
whether  the  measure  proposed  will  in  the  end  be  bene- 
ficial to  him  ?  Can  he  run  down  the  consequences  of  an 
act  into  eternity  and  weigh  all  its  results  ?  Must  he  not 
feel  himself  bound,  until  he  knows  the  certainty  that  the 
act  proposed  will  promote  his  good  upon  the  whole  ? 
Or  must  he  take  his  first  and  hasty  opinion  for  a  guide  ? 
In  that  case,  it  is  manifest  he  can  never  be  certain  that 
he  is  right.  In  this,  he  is  the  mere  creature  of  blind 
passion.  Whatever  he  may,  from  selfish  feeling,  think 
best  for  him,  he  is  obliged  to  do. 
2* 


18  WILL    OF    GOD MORAL    OBLIGATION. 

A  third  objection  therefore,  is,  that  this  account  of 
moral  obligation  runs  into  absolute  selfishness.  The 
immediate  ^tendency  and  the  remote  consequences  are, 
to  carry  away  the  heart  from  God  and  concentrate  its 
affections  in  self.  The  facility  with  which  the  Sabbath 
breaker,  the  profane  swearer,  the  drunkard,  the  debau- 
chee, can  engraft  his  favourite  scion  upon  this  stock, 
ought  to  insure  its  excision.  What  then  is  the  basis  of 
obligation  ? 

The  eternal  fitness  of  things,  say  others.  But  to  this 
the  above  reasoning  is  in  part  applicable,  and  a  sufficient 
reply.  Who  is  to  judge  whether  a  given  act  be  or  be 
not  agreeable  to  the  eternal  fitness  of  things  ?  Must  man 
be  released  from  moral  obligation,  until  after  he  per- 
ceives in  a  proposed  action,  its  adaptation  to  the  eternal 
fitness  of  things  ?  Who  then,  of  finite  mortals,  will  ever 
feel  the  bonds  of  duty  ? 

We  are  thrown  back  upon  the  will  of  God  as  the  on- 
ly ground  of  moral  obligation.  Man  is  bound  to  do 
what  God  commands,  and  to  abstain  from  what  he  for- 
bids, simply  because  He  commands  and  forbids.  Be- 
yond and  above  this  there  is  no  reason.  Direct  refer- 
ence to  this  reason  is  essential  to  moral  virtue.  Here 
again  appeal  is  made  to  the  general  sense  of  mankind. 
We  always  estimate  the  worth  of  an  action  by  the  mea- 
sure of  its  regard  to  this  standard.  God's  will  was,  that 
Israel  should  sufTer  most  distressing  calamities  at  the 
hand  of  the  Assyrian.  "  Against  the  people  of  my  wrath 
will  I  give  him  a  charge,  to  take  the  spoil  and  to  take 
the  pray,  and  to  tread  them  down  like  the  mire  of  the 
streets."  But  we  award  no  virtue  to  the  Assyrian,  for 
the  obvious  reason,  that  he  had  no  regard  at  all  to  the 
divine  will  in  all  he  did.  "  Howbeit,  he  meaneth  not 
so,  neither  doth  his  heart  think  so." — (Is.  x.  7.)  When 
an  action  is  done  regardless  of  God's  will,  no  honor  is 
shewn  to  him  and  the  practical  judgment  of  mankind  re- 
fuses the  award  of  virtue. 

Such  finally  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  It  knows 
no  foundation  of  right  or  wrrong — no  obligation  but  God's 
will.  But  as  the  same  passages  may  often  establish  the 
two  points  viz.  the  obligation  and  the  rule  of  action,  let 
us  take  them  in  connexion. 


WILL  OF  GOD — RULE  OF  DUTY.  19 

SECTION  IV. 
The  will  of  God  revealed  is  the  rule  of  duty. 

It  is  self-evident  that  it  cannot  rule,  direct,  govern  us, 
unless  it  is  applied.  Accordingly,  it  has  been  made 
known  in  divers  manners  and  at  sundry  times.  Let  us 
keep  our  eye  upon  the  position,  that  the  rule  and  its 
obligation  are  the  will  of  God  made  known.  Multitudes 
of  passages  might  be  quoted,  a  sample  follows.  "Thou 
shalt  not  eat  of  it,  for  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou 
shalt  surely  die." — Gen.  u,  17.  "  Make  thee  an  ark 
of  Gopher  wood,  &c." — vi,  14.  "He  doeth  according 
to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among  the  inha- 
bitants of  the  earth."-— Dan.  iv,  35.  "I  will  have  mer- 
cy on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  com- 
passion on  whom  I  will  have  compassion." — Rom.  ix, 
15.  "I  seek  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
the  Father  which  hath  sent  me."— John  v,  30.  "  My 
meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to  finish 
his  work." — iv,  34 — vi.  38.  "I  delight  to  do  thy  will, 
O  my  God:  yea,  thy  law  is  within  my  heart." — Psalms 
xi,  8.  "Whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God,  the  same 
is  my  brother,  and  my  sister  and  mother."'— Mark  m, 
35. 

From  these  passages,  no  man  can  well  avoid  seeing 
that — 1.  God's  own  rule  of  action  is  his  own  will — 
higher  and  holier  there  can  be  none. 

2.  To  the  will  of  God,  Jesus,  the  Saviour  of  men, 
uniformly  referred,  as  containing  the  obligation  and  the 
rule  of  his  own  action.  Even  when  the  desires  of  his 
perishable  nature — his  animal  body,  were  for  escape, 
yet  his  soul  felt  the  binding  obligation  of  the  divine 
will" — "  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt."  Reader,  does 
not  this  settle  the  question  ?  If  the  son  of  God  looked 
no  higher— no  lower — no  farther,  why  should  you? 

3.  To  man,  compliance  with  the  will  of  God,  be- 
cause it  is  the  will  of  God,  is  the  perfection  of  moral 
virtue.  He  who  does  so  comply  is  a  son  of  God — a 
brother  of  the  Lord  of  glory,  the  man  of  Calvary.     No 


20  WILL  OF  GOD— RULE  OF  DUTY. 

higher  motive  can  draw,  no  stronger  obligation  can 
bind  us.  A  loftier  aim  exceeds  our  conception,  a  low- 
er falls  short  of  God's  requirement  and  our  high  desti- 
nies. 

It  remains  only  to  enquire  how  this  will  is  made 
known  to  us.  And  to  this  the  answer  is  prompt,  viz: 
In  his  two  books — the  book  of  providence  and  the  book 
of  revelation. 

In  God's  book  of  providence  he  is  daily  displaying 
his  will.  All  that  occurs  around  us  whatever  be  the  a- 
gency,  is  according  to  his  will.  "Whether  prosperity 
or  adversity  be  our  lot,  we  are  called  upon  to  acquiesce 
without  a  murmur. 

In  his  book  of  revelation  he  has  recorded  the  great 
principles  of  his  government,  both  preceptively  and 
practically.  He  prescribes  rules  ot  faith  and  rules  of 
dutv.  He  addresses  his  law  and  his  gospel,  his  pre- 
cepts and  his  promises,  and  his  examples  to  be  shunned 
or  to  be  imitated,  to  the  proper  faculties  o(  our  nature, 
which  constitute  us  rational  and  accountable  beings. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  the  reader's  attention  is  in- 
vited to  a  striking  fact,  viz  :  that  whenever  the  heart  of 
man  is  pierced  and  his  soul  is  bowed  down  before  the 
majesty  oi  heaven — whenever  he  begins  to  feel,  in  the 
deep  consciousness  of  his  agitated  bosom,  that  his  ac- 
countabilities are  fearful  and  must  be  met,  he  enquires, 
according  to  the  doctrine  we  advocate,  "what  wilt  thou 
have  me  to  do  LM  Does  not  even*  man  who  has  been 
taught  oi  God  know  this  to  be  true  \  Is  there  not  there- 
fore a  revealed  testimony  in  every  sanctified  heart  to  the 
correctness  ot  the  rule  and  the  reality  of  its  obligation  ? 
I  nqestionably  this  is  the  very  principle  of  christian 
fortitude  and  christian  heroism.  Under  its  genuine  in- 
fluences, the  renewed  man  has  only  one  enquiry  in  re- 
ference to  any  proposed  enterprise — is  it  the  will  of 
God?  Satisfied  of  this,  his  heart  tells  him.  it  must  be 
done.  Difficulties,  dangers,  peril,  privations,  hardships, 
persecution,  rack,  torture,  burning,  death — all  present 
no  obstacle — onward  he  presses  in  the  path  marked  out 
for  him  by  the  will  of  his  Father.  Obedience  to  that 
is  his  only  responsibility. 


RATIONAL  INTELLIGENCE MORAL  AGENCY.  21 

SECTION   V. 

Rational  Intelligence,  necessary  to  moral  agency. 

In  all  that  has  been  said  about  the  obligation  and  rule 
of  action,  it  has  been  assumed,  thus  far,  that  for  every 
talent  «he  possesses,  man  is  accountable.  Nor  shall  any 
attempt  now  be  made  to  prove  the  correctness  of  the  as- 
sumption. It  shall  still  be  assumed  that  where  God  has 
given,  he  will  require ;  and  this  in  proportion  to  the  a- 
mount  of  the  gift.  This  truth  is  so  fully  and  so  plainly 
set  forth  in  the  parable  of  the  talents,  that  it  seems  utter- 
ly useless  to  delay  for  the  purpose  of  either  illustration 
or  proof. 

The  position  here  presented  is  simply  this,  that  if 
man  (or  any  other  creature)  has  not  reason — if  he  has 
no  capacity  to  compare  ideas,  to  mark  their  agreement 
or  difference,  and  draw  conclusions  and  infer  results  of 
conduct,  he  would  not  be  moral :  that  is,  he  would  not 
be  under  a  law  or  will  revealed,  and  liable  to  punishment 
for  its  violation;  or  to  reward  for  its  obedience.  We 
never  think  of  treating  idiots  or  infants,  or  brutes  as 
subjects  of  moral  law.  Let  the  evidence  be  presented, 
which  shall  convince  a  bench  of  judges,  that  the  prison- 
er before  them,  on  a  charge  of  murder,  was  devoid  of 
reason  at  the  time  the  deed  was  perpetrated,  and  they 
immediately  and  without  hesitation,  decide  that  it  is  not 
murder.  It  may  be  in  evidence  that  the  deed  was  vo- 
luntary— the  result  of  design,  still  in  the  absence  of  rea- 
son, they  will  not  pronounce  him  guilty  of  murder. 
Such  is  the  common  sense  of  mankind:  such  the  doc- 
trine of  scripture.  The  unhappy  maniac  is  pitied,  but 
not  punished. 

On  this  point  there  is  no  controversy.  But  whether 
rational  intelligence  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  moral  ac- 
countability, is  a  different  question,  and  one  involved  in 
some  difficulty,  and  not  without  some  importance  to  our 
future  enquiries.  Yet  this  question  is  not  raised  here 
with  a  view  to  its  full  discussion,  and  the  hope  of  its 
satisfactory  solution ;  but  simply  to  give  occasion  to  a 
remark  or  two,  preparatory  to  our  next  position. 


22  VOLITION  OR  CHOICE  IS  NECESSARY 

The  first  remark  is,  that  a  process  of  reasoning  may 
occur,  to  which  in  itself,  we  can  ascribe  no  moral  char- 
acter. What  are  the  moral  features  of  a  mathematical 
demonstration?  Using  the  terms  in  a  moral  sense,  can 
you  say  it  is  right  or  wrong?  Thus  it  would  seem,  that 
as  mere  reasoning,  it  is  devoid  of  moral  attribute.  This 
is  probably  the  reason,  why  Edwards  reckons  the  un- 
derstanding a  natural  faculty.  He  describes  natural  in- 
ability as  existing  "  when  we  cannot  do  a  thing  if  we 
will,  because  what  is  most  commonly  called  nature 
does  not  allow  of  it,  or  because  of  some  impeding  de- 
fect or  obstacle  that  is  extrinsic  to  the  will;  either  in  the 
faculty  of  understanding,  constitution  of  body,  or  exter- 
nal objects."  Works,  ii,  35.  Here,  it  is  manifest,  he 
places  the  understanding,  that  is,  the  rational  faculty 
among  the  natural,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  mor- 
al powers. 

Hence  it  has  been  argued  that  brutes  reason,  and  the 
case  of  the  dog  who  scented  his  master's  footsteps,  has 
been  adduced  as  proof.  When  he  came  to  the  triple 
fork  in  the  road,  and  had  scented  along  two  "of  the 
branches,  and  perceiving  no  scent  in  either,  he  instantly 
took  the  third  without  smelling  at  all.  The  process  is 
simple,  one  of  the  three  the  master  took,  but  he  did  not 
take  the  right,  nor  the  middle,  therefore,  he  did  take  the 
left.  But  if  brutes  reason,  are  they  moral  ?  Men  do  not 
so  account  it.  They  have  never  proceeded  on  the  be- 
lief of  it.  May  we  not  infer,  that  something  more  than 
simply  a  capacity  to  reason,  is  included  in  our  idea  of 
moral  agency  ? 

SECTION  VI. 

Volition,  or  Choice  is  necessary  to  Moral  Jlgency. 

"  We  must  remember,  that  volition  or  willing,  is  an 
act  of  the  mind  directing  its  thought  to  the  production  of 
any  action,  and  thereby  exerting  its  power  to  produce 
it.  The  will  is  nothing  but  a  power  in  the  mind  to  di- 
rect the  operative  faculties  of  a  man  to  motion  or  rest, 
as  far  as  they  depend  on  such  direction." — Locke,  b  n. 


TO  MORAL  AGENCY.  23 

ch.  21.  "  The  will  (without  any  metephysical  refining) 
is,  that  by  which  the  mind  chooses  any  thing.  The 
faculty  of  the  will,  is  that  power,  or  principle  of  mind, 
by  which  it  is  capable  of  choosing ;  an  act  of  the  will 
is  the  same  as  an  act  of  choosing  or  choice." — Ed- 
wards ii.  15.  When  the  herdmen  of  Abraham  and  the 
herdmen  of  his  nephew  had,  by  their  strife,  endangered 
the  peace  of  the  parties,  the  patriarch  proposed  a  separ- 
ation ;  and  condescendingly  offered  the  young  man  his 
choice  of  the  whole  land  ;  "  Then  Lot  chose  him  all  the 
plain  of  Jordon."  What  did  he  ?  He  took  a  view  of  the 
different  localities.  He  observed  the  pasture  lands,  the 
hills,  the  vales,  the  springs  and  brooks  of  each — he 
weighed  the  motives — he  balanced  in  his  own  mind  the 
advantages  and  the  disadvantages  and  as  the  most  prom- 
ising prospects  were — as  the  motives  were,  so  was  his 
choice.  This  is  volition — an  act  of  the  mind  "  direct- 
ing the  operative  faculties  of  a  man  to  motion  or  rest." 
and  so  Lot  forthwith  descended  into  the  plain.  Now 
we  say  that  volition  or  choice,  is  necessary  to  constitute 
moral  agency.  If  a  man  is  compelled,  by  any  force  or 
physical  strength,  to  do  any  act,  good  or  bad,  it  is  ob- 
viously not  an  act  of  his  mind,  and  all  men  hold  him  ir- 
responsible. For  it  is  not  any  mere  physical  operation 
to  which  we  attach  the  notion  of  right  and  wrong — of 
moral  or  immoral ;  but  it  is  the  act  of  the  mind,  which 
here  is  not  expressed.  Physical  acts  are  spoken  of  as 
right  or  wrong,  only  as  they  are  significant  of  mental 
operations.  This  distinction  governs  the  practice  of 
mankind  in  all  civilized  communities.  Involuntary  hom- 
icide is  not  murder.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  man  way- 
lay his  neighbour  with  intent  to  kill  him,  and  yet  by  his 
gun  missing  fire,  he  does  not  kill  or  injure  him,  all  men 
admit,  that,  in  the  sight  of  God,  he  is  a  murderer.  Be- 
cause there  was  volition— the  mind  acted.  Here  phys- 
ical ability  is  not  necessary  to  moral  action,  nor 
connected  with  it.  In  the  other  case  the  physical  abili- 
ty existed  and  was  exerted,  and  yet  there  was  no  moral 
character  to  it.  Wherever  no  volition  is,  there  is  no  ac- 
countability. Thus  far  only,  it  may  be  necessary  for  us 
to  go,  for  our  purposes,  at  least  for  the  present.     And 


24  VOLITION  OR  CHOICE MORAL  AGENCY. 

thus  far  there  is  almost  no  contrariety  of  opinion.  Should 
the  reader  desire  to  throw  in  the  question  of  freedom  of 
will  here,  I  would  simply  remark,  with  Edwards, — n.  38, 
and  Locke, — b.  n.  ch.  21,  and  Dickinson,-— p.  37,  that 
freedom  is  not  predicable  of  the  will.  The  first  says — 
"To  talk  of  liberty  or  the  contrary,  as  belonging  to  the 
very  will  itself,  is  not  to  speak  good  sense  ;  if  we  judge 
of  sense  and  nonsense,  by  the  original  and  proper  signi- 
fication of  words.  For  the  ivill  itself  is  not  an  agent 
that  has  a  will ;  the  power  of  choosing  itself  has  not  a 
power  of  choosing."  So  Locke,  "  The  question  itself, 
viz.  whether  man'' s  will  be  free,  or  no?  is  altogether 
improper;  and  it  is  as  insignificant  to  ask,  whether  man's 
will  be  free,  as  to  ask,  whether  his  sleep  be  swift,  or  his 
virtue  square ;  liberty  being  as  little  applicable  to  the 
will,  as  swiftness  or  motion  is  to  sleep,  or  squareness  to 
virtue." — n.  24,  14. 

Edwards  states  the  Pelagian  notion  of  liberty  thus— 
vol.  ii.  39.  "1.  That  it  consists  in  a  self- deter  mining 
power  in  the  will,  or  a  certain  sovereignty  the  will  has  over 
itself,  and  its  own  acts,  whereby  it  determines  its  own 
volitions  ;  so  as  not  to  be  dependant  in  its  determinations, 
on  any  cause  without  itself,  nor  determined  by  any  thing 
prior  to  its  own  acts.  2.  Indifference  belongs  to  liberty 
in  their  notion  of  it,  or  that  the  mind,  previous  to  the 
act  of  volition,  be  in  equilibrio.  3.  Contingency  is 
another  thing  that  belongs  and  is  essential  to  it ;  not  in 
the  common  acceptation  of  the  word,  as  that  has  been 
already  explained,  but  as  opposed  to  all  necessity,  or 
any  fixed  and  certain  connexion  with  some  previous 
ground  or  reason  of  its  existence."  To  refute  this  doc- 
trine  is  the  grand  design  of  Edwards,  in  his  treatise  on 
the  will.  This,  every  careful  reader  of  that  treatise 
knows;  and  whether  the  first  of  the  errors  above,  viz. 
that  the  will  has  a  self-determining  power — which  is  the 
chief  and  capital  error — be  not  the  radical  principle  of  all 
the  modern  improvements  in  theology,  the  reader  must 
judge.  It  is  foreign  to  the  plan  of  this  work  to  enter 
into  that  controversy.  Should  the  providential  call  for 
its  discussion,  exist,  after  this  undertaking  shall  have 
been  completed,  as  it  does  now,  the  writer  purposes  to 
turn  his  thoughts  in  that  direction. 


A  MORAL  SENSE  IS  NECESSARY  25 

Volition  is  necessary  to  moral  agency.  But  it  is  still 
a  question,  whether  volition,  and  even  this  combined 
with  rational  intelligence,  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  con- 
stitute it.  Are  these  all  that  are  necessary  to  ren- 
der a  being  morally  accountable  for  his  conduct  ?  This 
is  a  philosophical  question  and  yet  an  interesting  and  a 
profitable  one.  But  brevity  is  indispensible.  It  will  be 
agreed  on  all  sides  that  reasoning  is  necessary  to  voli- 
tion. There  can  be  no  choice  where  there  is  no  thought 
and  no  capacity  to  compare  one  thought  with  another. 
The  weighing  of  motives  and  the  yielding  of  the  mind 
to  the  stronger,  implies  and  includes  the  exercise  of  rea- 
son. The  precise  question  then  is,  whether  in  the  act 
of  choice  there  is  any  morality ;  that  is,  necessarily. 
Can  there  be  volition, — an  act  of  choice  to  which  the 
terms  right  or  wrong,  moral  or  immoral  cannot  be  ap- 
plied ?  If  there  can,  then  volition  and  the  measure  of 
reason  necessary  to  it,  are  not  every  thing  required  in  a 
moral  agent.  Let  it  therefore  be  asked,  whether  the  act 
of  mind,  which  directs  my  lifting  of  this  pen  rather  thna 
that  one,  is  necessarily  moral.  Would  it  have  been  sin- 
ful for  me  to  have  chosen  that  pen  ?  Unless  this  last  act 
of  choice  would  have  been  thought  wrong,  or  immoral,  can 
it  be  said  that  the  other  was  right  and  moral  ?  But  how 
can  the  idea  of  right  and  wrong  exist,  except  in  refer- 
ence to  a  rule  of  right?  And  where  is  the  rule  in  this 
case  ?  Or  rather  how  could  I  have  the  idea  of  a  rule  of 
right,  if  I  possessed  only  reason  and  volition?  Did  not 
the  dog,  in  the  case  alluded  to  just  now,  perform  an  act 
of  reason — did  he  not  exercise  volition?  Human  lan- 
guage every  where  supposes  that  animah  have  a  power 
of  choice — they  exercise  volition.  Are  they  moral 
agents  ?  Something  more  is  requisite. 

SECTION  VII. 

A  Moral  Sense  is  necessary  to  a  Moral  Agent. 

That  the  properties  and  powers  of  our  animal  nature 
are  mo?t  intimately  connected  with  the   intellectual,  is 
most  obvious  to  our  consciousness.     Yet  are  they  very 
3 


26  A  MORAL   SENSE. 

distinct  and  separable.  So,  the  intellectual  powers  are 
distinct  from  the  moral,  but  more  intimately  connected 
than  the  preceding.  Still  it  does  not  appear  to  me  that 
they  are  necessarily  blended  and  confused.  A  capacity 
to  be  influenced  by  motives  presented  through  the  rea- 
soning faculty,  does  not  involve  accountability,  indepen- 
dently on  the  character  of  the  motives.  "  To  moral 
agency,"  says  Edwards,  n.  40.  "belongs  a  moral  fac- 
ulty, or  sense  of  moral  good  and  evil,  or  of  such  a  thing  as 
desert  or  worthiness,  of  praise  or  blame,  reward  or  pun- 
ishment ;  and  a  capacity  which  an  Agent  has  of  being 
influenced  in  his  actions  by  moral  inducements  or  mo- 
tives exhibited  to  the  view  of  understanding  and  reason, 
to  engage  to  a  conduct  agreeable  to  the  moral  faculty." 
A  little  below  he  observes,  "  The  brute  creatures  are  not 
moral  agents," — because — "  they  have  no  moral  faculty, 
or  sense  of  desert,  and  do  not  act  from  choice  guided  by 
understanding,  or  with  a  capacity  of  reasoning  and  re- 
flecting, but  onlv  from  instinct,  and  are  not  capable  of 
being  influenced  by  moral  inducements."  To  all  this 
I  heartily  subscribe,  except  that,  probably  reasoning  and 
choice,  which  are  here  denied  to  brutes,  are  taken  in, 
notwithstanding,  under  the  general  term  instinct.  What 
is  instinct  ?  Is  it  not  simply  that  measure  (undefined, 
perhaps  undefinable)  of  reason  and  choice  which  the 
Creator  has  allotted  to  brutes  ? 

The  time  has  been  when  the  doctrine  of  a  moral 
sense  was  controverted  on  philosophical  grounds.  Its 
advocates  were  challenged  for  proof ;  and  proof  of  such 
kind  was  demanded,  as  was  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
nature  of  the  subject.  Mathematical  evidence,  on  a 
moral  subject !  Mathematical  evidence  that  man  has  a 
conscience  !  You  might  as  well  demand  mathematical 
evidence  that  Brutus'  dagger  pierced  the  robe  of  Caesar 
— that  Arnold  attempted  to  betray  his  country!  What 
then  is  the  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  moral  sense — a 
conscience — a  faculty  or  power  in  man  of  perceiving 
right  and  wrong,  and  feeling  the  force  of  moral  obliga- 
tion ?  I  answer,  1.  The  very  existence  of  these  terms; 
if  they  express  any  ideas  at  all,  these  ideas  or  thoughts 
must  have  an  existence  in  the  human  mind.     If  all  hu- 


NECESSARY  TO  A  MORAL  AGENT.  27 

man  languages  have  terms  expressive  of  these  very 
thoughts,  it  proves  the  universality;  of  the  principles  or 
powers  of  mind,  by  which  alone  the  thoughts  themselves 
can  be  perceived.  2.  The  ideas  of  right  and  wrong  can 
be  traced  universally  among  men,  by  their  other  lan- 
guage and  the  customs  and  manners  connected  with 
criminal  jurisprudence.  But  3dly  and  chiefly,  The  in- 
ternal and  irresistable  consciousness  of  every  living 
man.  And  here  moral  science  stands  on  lofty  ground. 
She  is  not  dependent  on  any  external  powers.  She  carries 
with  herself  and  in  herself,  as  it  were,  the  very  evidence 
for  which  many  other  sciences  are  dependant.  She  ap- 
peals directly  to  the  present  witness  in  every  man's  bo- 
som. True,  under  peculiar  circumstances,  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  witness  may  be  confused  and  undistinct,  and 
unavailable  ;  but  not  more  so  than  the  witnesses  at  any 
other  tribunal :  nor  in  greater  numbers.  Exceptions 
there  are  a  few,  where  the  internal  consciousness  is  not 
satisfactory  ;  but  in  the  immense  majority — the  almost 
universality  of  cases,  conscience  is  her  own  vindicator. 
The  moral  sense  speaks  out  with  a  voice  that  must  be 
heard.  If  insulted  and  abused,  she  may  modestly  retire 
from  the  tribunal ;  but  only  for  a  time.  Soon  she  ral- 
lies and  returns,  and  will  command  attention. 

Or  as  a  Scottish  writer  has  beautifully  expressed  the 
thought :  "  It  is  no  induction  of  logic  that  has  transfixed 
the  heart  of  the  victim  of  deep  remorse,  when  he  with- 
ers beneath  an  influence  unseen  by  human  eye,  and 
shrinks  from  the  anticipation  of  a  reckoning  to  come. 
In  both,  the  evidence  is  within, — a  part  of  the  original 
constitution  of  every  rational  mind,  planted  there  by  him 
who  framed  the  wondrous  fabric.  This  is  the  power 
of  conscience  ;  with  an  authority  which  no  man  can  put 
away  from  him,  it  pleads  at  once  for  his  own  future  ex- 
istence, and  for  the  moral  attributes  of  an  omnipotent 
and  ever-present  Deity.  In  a  healthy  state  of  the  moral 
feelings,  the  man  recognizes  its  claim  to  supreme  do- 
minion. Amid  the  degradation  of  guilt,  it  still  raises 
its  voice,  and  asserts  its  right  to  govern  the  whole  man; 
and   though  its  warnings  are   disregarded  and  its  claims 


28  MORAL  SENSE — MORAL  AGENT. 

disallowed,  it  proves  within  his  inmost  soul  an  accuser 
that  cannot  be  stilled,  and  an  avenging  spirit  that  never 
is  quenched." 

"If  our  heart  condemn  us,  God  is  greater  than  our 
heart  and  knoweth  all  things.  Beloved,  if  our  heart 
condemn  us  not,  then  have  we  confidence  toward  God." 
— 1.  John  iii,  20.  Here  the  moral  sense — conscience, 
is  clothed  with  a  species  of  judicial  power.  And  so  Job 
xxvii,  6.  "  My  righteousness  I  hold  fast,  and  will  not 
let  it  go,  my  heart  shall  not  reproach  me  so  long  as  I 
live."  Here  the  same  principle  or  moral  sense  is  set 
forth  under  the  same  name,  heart, — conscience.  Nor 
is  there  perhaps  a  single  instance  in  the  bible  wherein 
the  existence  of  a  moral  faculty  is  formally  affirmed. 
It  is  every  where  assumed  ;  just  as  the  being  of  a  God 
is  every  where  assumed.  Nor  are  we  to  be  distracted 
or  disturbed  tho'  men  may  throw  metaphysical  difficul- 
ties in  the  way.  What  is  this  moral  faculty  ?  If  it  is 
not  reason — nor  volition,  nor  a  mere  bodily  organ; 
what  is  it  ?  where  does  it  reside  ?  We  can  just  as  easi- 
ly retort,  what  is  reason  ? — what  is  the  will  ?  what  and 
where  understanding  1  &c.  &c.  Nay,  but  let  us  dis- 
miss this  folly  and  rest  in  the  broad,  undeniable  fact 
— men  do  have  and  exercise  continually  a  faculty  of 
perceiving  and  feeling  that  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong 
— they  have  a  sense  of  guilt  or  liability  to  punishment 
for  some  actions  ;  and  a  feeling  of  approbation  and  sense 
of  desert  of  reward  for  others.  Now  it  is  this  moral 
sense,  connected  as  it  is  with  reason  and  volition,  and 
some  others  to  be  mentioned,  that  constitutes  man  a 
moral  agent.  This  presents  moral  motives.  How 
man  should  feel  any  power  in  motives  to  right  action  or 
any  repulsion  or  aversion  from  wrong  actions,  M'ithout 
it,  is,  I  suppose  inconceivable.  Take  away  this  and  all 
talk  about  the  rewards  of  virtue  is  absurd,  for  all  dis- 
tinction between  virtue  and  vice  must  cease.  "The  mo- 
ral maniac  pursues  his  way,  and  thinks  himself  a  wise 
and  a  happy  man ;  but  feels  not  that  he  is  treading 
a  downward  course,  and  is  lost  as  a  moral  being." 


SELF-LOVE MORAL  GOVERNMENT.  29 


SECTION  VIIL 

Self-love,  or  the  desire  of  happiness,  implied  in  moral 

government. 

The  sacred  scriptures  have  prescribed  love  to  our- 
selves, as  to  manner  and  measure,  as  a  rule  in  reference 
to  others.  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself." 
Love  is  the  principle  of  communicative  goodness — the 
principle  of  diffusive  benevolence — that  disposition  and 
feeling  in  us  which  leads  and  prompts  us  to  do  good  to 
the  loved  object.  All  living  beings  desire  to  be  happy. 
This  has  been  appropriately  styled  the  first  law  of  na- 
ture— a  law  indispensable  to  the  continuance  of  life. 
"No  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh,  but  loveth  it  and 
cherisheth  it."  From  the  minutest  insect  to  the  mighti- 
est angel,  love  of  happiness  is  the  law  of  life.  Efforts 
towards  self-preservation  are  but  the  actings  of  this 
law. 

Self-love  is  an  original  and  essential  ingredient  of  our 
being — in  itself  a  holy  and  right  feeling.  Its  corruption 
and  degeneracy  ends  in  selfishness,  which  makes  its 
own  supposed  enjoyment  the  supreme  object  of 
pursuit,  irrespective  of  the  claims  of  our  fellow  men 
or  of  our  Creator.  True  self-love,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  perfectly  consistent  with  both.  Indeed,  it 
necessarily  involves  both.  For  our  highest  enjoyments 
lie  in  communion  with  men  and  God,  which  communion 
consists  in  the  full  and  fair  discharge  of  the  relative  du- 
ties we  owe  to  both.  As  therefore  self-love  leads  to  self- 
preservation  and  the  utmost  possible  extension  of  our 
own  happiness;  so  are  we  bound  to  exercise  the  general 
principles  of  love  in  promoting,  to  the  utmost  possible 
degree  the  happiness  of  all  our  brethren  of  the  human 
race.  The  strength  of  obligation  in  the  latter  is  inferred, 
in  the  rule,  from  the  force  of  the  principle  in  the  former. 
How  this  becomes  important  in  morals  will  appear  in  the 
next  section. 
3* 


30  REWARDS  AND  PUNISHMENTS 


SECTION  IX. 

Rewards  and  punishments  are  addressed  to  the  princi- 
ple of  self-love  and  are  essential  to  the  idea  of 
moral  government. 

A  reward  is  some  good  conferred  as  a  consideration  for 
right  action.  When  a  child  has  been  obedient  to  his 
parent,  something  is  given  to  the  child  or  done  for  him, 
which  affords  him  happiness;  and  this,  as  an  expression 
of  the  parents  approbation  of  his  conduct.  On  the 
contrary,  if  the  child's  conduct  has  been  wrong,  the 
parent  withholds  the  expression  of  satisfaction  ;  he  in- 
flicts some  privation  or  pain,  as  an  expression  of  his 
disapprobation.  This  is  punishment  and  whether  it 
consists,  simply  in  the  withholding  of  a  benefit,  or  the 
positive  infliction  of  pain,  it  is  addressed  to  the  principle 
of  self-love  :  and  when  held  up  before  the  mind,  previ- 
ously to  the  perpetration  of  the  deed,  it  constitutes  what 
is  called  a  motive  to  action.  It  is  so  called  because  of 
some  suitableness  or  adaptation  in  it,  to  move  the  per- 
son to  act.  "  By  motive"  says  Edwards,  "  I  mean 
the  whole  of  that  which  moves."  Now  the  hope  of 
happiness  and  the  fear  of  pain  have  their  common 
origin  in  self-love.  Every  thing  therefore  which  is  done 
to  alarm  our  fears  and  to  excite  our  hopes,  derives  from 
this  first  law  of  nature  its  entire  moving  force.  Take 
away  from  the  human  bosom  the  love  of  happiness  ; 
and  hope  and  fear  are  terms  without  meaning.  If  pain 
and  pleasure  were  matters  of  perfect  indifference,  how 
could  the  one  or  the  other  influence  to  action  ?  But  as 
the  law  exists  in  every  man's  consciousness — as  we  feel 
it  impossible  to  throw  off  the  fear  of  pain  and  to  extin- 
guish the  lights  of  hope,  wre  experience  continually  the 
repelling  influence  of  the  one,  and  the  attracting  force  of 
the  other. 

If  we  look  narrowly  into  these  things,  we  shall  find 
that  the  precise  design  of  the  Creator  in  furnishing  us  with 
such  a  constitution,  is  to  make  us  capable  of  being 
influenced  by  motives,  that  we  might  be  under  moral 


NECESSARY.  31 

government :  and  that  the  design  of  men  in  applying 
reward  and  punishment,  is  to  connect  most  intimately 
in  the  mind,  upright  action  with  happiness,  on  the  one 
hand;  and  wrong  action  with  pain  on  the  other  ;  and 
all  with  the  same  view  of  bringing  motive  to  act  upon 
self-love.  Two  remarks,  of  very  considerable  impor- 
tance to  a  right  understanding  of  the  nature  of  moral 
government  and  of  the  great  doctrine  of  justification,  it 
may  be  as  well  here  to  present  more  distinctly  to  the 
readers  most  serious  consideration,  viz: 

1.  The  precise  object  of  reward,  is  right  action. 
No  parent  feels  that  he  ought  to  reward — that  is,  to  be- 
stow good, — to  confer  benefits,  on  his  child  as  a  consi- 
deration for  nothing — for  no  action  at  all.  No  govern- 
ment holds  out  a  premium  for  indolence,  no  more  than 
for  vicious  conduct.  The  very  idea  of  rewarding  inac- 
tion is  absurd.  We  have  seen  that  the  possession  of  facul- 
ties adapted  to  useful  action  is  an  expression  of  the 
Creator's  will  that  we  ought  to  exercise  them.  The 
possession  infers  the  obligation  to  use.  Inactivity  is  a 
sin.  The  burying  of  his  talent  or  the  hiding  of  it  in  a 
napkin  was  a  punishable  offence  ;  a  sin  in  itself,  a  re- 
sistance of  his  Lord's  will  who  gave  it.  In  other  words, 
innocence  is  not  meritorious  of  positive  reward. 

By  innocence,  I  understand,  the  primitive  state  of  a 
moral  being,  prior  to  his  active  performance  of  duty  or 
actual  commission  of  sin.  Adam  was  innocent  the  mo- 
ment of  his  creation,  but  was  not  entitled  to  heaven. 
Positive  and  perpetual  bliss  is  the  reward  of  perfect 
righteousness.  Innocence  is  entitled  only  to  exemption 
from  painful  endurance.  "  Adam  was  not  to  have  the 
reward  merely  on  account  of  his  being  innocent ;  if  so, 
he  would  have  had  it  fixed  upon  him  at  once,  as  soon 
as  ever  he  was  created;  for  he  was  as  innocent  then  as 
he  could  be.  But  he  was  to  have  the  reward  on  account 
of  his  activeness  in  obedience;  not  on  account  merely  of 
his  not  having  done  ill,  but  on  account  of  his  doing 
well."— Edwards  v,  396. 

An  objection  will  here  perhaps  occur  to  the  readers 
mind — If  innocence  is  not  entitled  to  reward,  can  the 
moral  being  who  has  a  corrupt  nature,  prior  to  his  own 


32  REWARDS  AND  PUNISHMENTS. 

active  sinfulness,  be  entitled  to  punishment  ?  The  an- 
swer to  this  must  depend  upon  a  previous  question,  viz: 
How  came  he  into  this  state  of  sinfulness?  Was  it  by 
a  direct  and  immediate  exertion  of  creating  power  ? 
Then  God  is  the  author  of  this  corruption,  which  to  af- 
firm is  blasphemy.  Was  it  a  result  of  previous  moral 
action  with  which  the  man  was  mediately  connected  ? 
Then  he  in  whom  the  corruption  of  disposition  exists, 
is  not  innocent.  His  inclinations  and  desires  after  evil 
are  consequences  of  sin,  have  their  cause  of  existence  in 
sin  and  are  therefore  sinful  like  their  cause ;  and  of 
course,  are  deserving  of  punishment. 

"Activeness  in  obedience" — righteousness,  is   that  to 
which  alone  reward — good,  blessing  is  promised.     The 
doctrine  of  the  good  and  the  great  Edwards,  of  the  bible  and 
of  common  sense,  ought  to  be  a  little  farther  illustrated. 
It  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  all  morality  and  reli- 
gion.    Let  us  have  distinct  ideas  here,  or  all  will  be  ob- 
scurity.    Let  us  know  what  righteousness  is,  and  light 
will   shine  upon   our  path  throughout.     What  then  is 
righteousness  ?  I  answer,  it  is  doing  right — right  ac- 
tion— action  according  to  the  rule  of  right — conformi- 
ty with  law.     When  a  moral  being  has  done,  what  the 
law  under  which  he  is  placed,  requires  him  to  do,  he  is 
righteous.     "The  formal  nature  of  righteousness,  (says 
Edwards  v.  397,)  lies  in  a  conformity  of  actions  to  that 
which  is  the  rule  and  measure  of  them.     Therefore  that 
only  is  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  a  judge  that  answers 
the  law.     That  perfect  obedience,  is  what  is  called  right- 
eousness, in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  this  righteous- 
ness or  perfect  obedience,  is  by  God's  fixed  unalterable 
rule  the  condition  of  justification,  is,  from  the  plain  ev- 
idence of  truth  confessed  by  a  certain  great  man,  whom 
no  one  will  think  to  be  blinded  by  prejudice,  in  favor  of 
the    doctrine    we    are    maintaining."     He   then   quotes 
Locke  with  approbation,   "  For  righteousness  or  an  ex- 
act obedience  to  the  law,  seems  by  the  scripture  to  have 
a  claim  of  right  to  eternal  life  ; — Rom.  iv.  4.     To  him 
that  worketh,  i.  e.  does  the  works  of  the  law,   "  is  the 
reward   not  reckoned  of  grace  but  of  debt."     "Such 
a  perfect  obedience  in  the  New  Testiment,  is   termed 
Sixcuoawr;  which  is  translated  righteousness.''1     "  This 


NECESSARY.  33 

adds  Edwards,  is  that  which  St.  Paul  so  often  styles 
the  law  without  any  other  distinction; — Rom.  n.  13. 
"  Not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God,  but  the 
doers  of  the  law  are  justified."  It  is  needless  to  quote 
any  more  passages,  his  epistles  are  full  of  it,  especially 
this  to  the  Romans."     Ed.  v.  398. 

Here  I  am  in  a  strait.  The  vast  importance  of  this 
principle  in  moral  government,  whether  under  a  divine 
or  human  administration,  strongly  invites  to  spend  more 
time  in  its  illustration  and  defence.  And  this  the  more,  be- 
cause this  fundamental  principle  is  almost  wholly  lost 
sight  of  in  a  large  portion  of  all  that  has  been  written 
and  come  to  my  knowledge  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
on  the  subject  of  religion  and  morals.  It  is  amazing  how 
the  very  foundation  on  which  all  government  rests,  or 
rather  the  essence  of  the  thing  itself,  can  be  kept  out  of 
sight,  whilst  a  vast  amount  of  commotion  exists  all 
around  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  heavenly  simplicity  of  the 
principle — its  inexplic ability  because  of  its  elementary 
simplicity,  seems  to  me  to  foreclose  description  and 
frown  upon  all  attempts  at  explanation.  To  save  him- 
self from  the  labor  of  reading  page  after  page  of  attempted 
illustration,  where  the  subject  is,  at  the  outset,  intuitive- 
ly true — rather,  where  its  truth  is  intuitively  perceived, 
will  not  the  reader  agree  and  pledge  himself  never  to  for- 
get,  that  RIGHTEOUSNESS  IS   CONFORMITY  AVITH  LAW;    and 

the  only  proper  object  of  reward? — that  there  is,  in  the 
government  of  God,  an  eternal  connexion  between  up- 
right action  and  the  happiness  of  the  actor. 

Presuming  that  you  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  these 
terms,  I  offer  the  2d  remark,  which  is  counterpart  to  the 
former,  viz.  That  there  exists  an  indispensable  con- 
nexion between  wrong-doing  and  suffering — that  neglect- 
ing to  act  rightly  and  acting  wrongly  are  to  be  followed 
by  punishment. 

Punishment  is  the  pain,  whether  of  privation  or  of 
positive  visitation  of  wrath — the  evil  which  is  inflicted 
by  the  ruling  power,  as  an  expression  of  displeasure 
against  sin.  The  infliction  of  such  evil  goes  on  the 
principle  that  it  is  right  to  connect  sin  and  suffering. 


34  BRIEF  SUMMARY. 

The  assumption  of  its  truth  will  not  be  accounted  im- 
proper here.  We  surely  need  no  laboured  argument  to 
satisfy  us  that  it  is  right  to  punish  sin — to  visit  evils  up- 
on men  proportional  to  the  magnitude  of  their  offences. 
We  have  the  evidence  within  ourselves — we  feel,  even, 
when  the  evil  comes  upon  ourselves,  that  it  is  right.  We 
have  the  evidence  of  its  correctness  in  the  universal  con- 
sent of  men,  as  that  is  expressed  in  all  the  governments 
exercised  by  man.  We  have  the  evidence  in  the  whole  of 
God's  visitations  upon  human  folly  and  crime.  "Though 
hand  join  to  hand  the  wicked  shall  not  go  unpunished." 
It  is  therefore  utterly  unnecessary  to  delay  for  the  pur- 
pose of  proof.  Penal  evil  is  essential  to  moral  govern- 
ment ;  prior  to  the  act  of  sin,  as  motive  operating  by  fear  : 
posterior  to  sin,  as  a  vindication  of  the  justice  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  of  the  holiness  and  truth  of  the  governor. 

SECTION  X. 

A  Brief  Summary. 

No  man  can  form  a  notion  of  moral  government,  of 
which  rewards  and  punishments  does  not  constitute  a 
leading  part.  The  hope  of  happiness,  as  an  inseparable 
accompaniment  of  upright  conduct,  and  the  fear  of  pun- 
ishment as  a  result  of  unrighteousness,  are  addressed  to 
the  principle  of  self-love.  Thus  motive  is  brought  to 
bear  upon  choice.  The  desires  of  the  mind  have  for 
their  direct  object  apprehended  good,  these  desires  ope- 
rate an  influence  upon  the  will,  and  the  object  of  the 
mind's  contemplation,  when  about  to  make  a  choice,  is  its 
own  acts.  Two  or  more  objects  are  presented  under 
circumstances  inviting  to  choice;  which  of  the  two  shall 
the  mind  choose  ?  In  all  its  actings  or  movements  to- 
ward answering  this  question,  the  qualities  of  the  things 
presented  are  the  subjects  which  the  mind  is  examining. 
In  the  choice  itself,  the  precise  object  is  the  action  to  be 
performed.  I  am  offered  an  apple  and  an  orange,  with 
the  privilege  of  taking  one.  I  perceive  them  and  know 
their  qualities.  Therein  I  exercise  intelligence.  I  com- 
pare their  qualities  together  and  those  with   my  own 


BRIEF  SUMMARY.  35 

taste  and  relish  for  them  respectively.  Herein  I  reason 
— in  weighing  motives.  I  feel  that  I  ought  to  take  the 
one  which  will  afford  me  the  most  happiness  on  the 
whole.  This  is  my  rule  of  judgement — my  law.  The 
qualities  of  the  fruits  are  the  objects  of  my  mental  action. 
These  operations  over,  the  act  of  choice,  or  the  volition 
follows.  This  act  of  choosing  or  willing  moves  my 
hand  Sic.  to  take  and  eat.  These  last  acts  are  the  di- 
rect objects  of  the  act  of  will  or  of  volition  ;  and  the  act 
of  volition  was  produced  by  the  previous  acts  of  reason- 
ing in  weighing  the  motives  ;  and  these  motives  have 
reference  to  the  laws  of  self-love  ;  as  the  greatest  appa- 
rent good,  so  was  my  choice  and  consequent  action.  It 
is  perfectly  obvious  then,  that  the  state  of  the  body,  its 
taste,  its  habits  previously,  its  present  appetite,  whether 
sated  with  this  fruit  or  hungry  for  it,  &c.  &c.  have  an 
overpowering  influence  in  the  choice. 

Now  let  the  objects  between  which  the  mind  is  called 
upon  to  make  a  choice,  be  the  happiness  connected  with 
a  moral  act  on  the  one  hand ;  and  the  misery  connected 
with  an  immoral  act  on  the  other.  The  law  prescribing 
duty  is  the  rule  of  judgment:  and  the  moral  sense  de- 
crees that  I  ought  to  obey  the  law,  whilst  various  tempta- 
tions operate  on  the  other  side.  Here  the  process  is 
similar.  The  intellectual  powers  are  exercised  in  per- 
ceiving the  rule  and  its  transgression  and  the  consequen- 
ces, viz.:  the  reward  and  the  punishment.  The  reason- 
ing faculty  is  exerted  in  comparing  together  the  things 
perceived.  The  principle  of  self-love  is  active  in  draw- 
ing toward  that  which  according  to  the  present  aspect, 
will  make  me  happy ;  which  may  be  in  opposition 
to  conscience  or  the  moral  sense.  Volition  is  the  mind's 
last  act  preceding  the  performance  of  the  deed  ;  reward 
or  punishment  follows  the  act.  This  is  moral  action, 
and  he  who  enacted  the  law,  who  regulates  motives  and 
sees  to  the  business  of  judging  and  administering  the  re- 
ward or  the  punishment,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  the 
Moral  Governor. 

God  reveals  his  will,  "  Thou  shaltnot  murder."  He 
states  the  consequences  of  acting  contrary  to  it.  "Whoso 
sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed." 


36  BRIEF  SUMMARY. 

The  consequence  of  obedience  is  inferred.  If  a  mart 
love  his  neighbor  he  shall  be  happy.  The  mind  looks 
at  the  sin  of  murder,  in  connexion  with  its  threatened 
punishment ;  it  looks  at  the  duty  of  loving  and  doing 
good  to  man,  in  connexion  with  its  reward.  A  feeling 
of  desire  for  the  reward  and  a  feeling  of  aversion  from 
the  pains  of  punishment,  exist  in  the  mind.  These 
feelings,  which  are  simply  the  action  of  the  principle  of 
self-love,  immediately  tend  to  move  the  will ;  reason, 
meanwhile,  is  employed  in  comparing  the  different  acts 
and  their  consequences  ;  the  mind  wills  the  perpetration 
of  the  deed;  and  God  visits  with  deserved  punishment  ; 
or,  it  resists  the  temptation,  wills  a  kindly  act,  and  ex- 
periences the  happy  consequences. 

Intelligence,  then,  and  reason,  and  desire,  and  self- 
love,  and  volition,  and  a  moral  sense,  and  a  law  or  rule 
of  action,  and  reward  and  punishment  to  be  administered 
by  God  whose  law  extends  over  man — are  all  included 
in  the  idea  of  moral  government.  They  all  exist  in  the 
case  of  man,  and  constitute  him  a  moral  agent. 

1.  Let  me  appeal  to  present  witnesses  for  the  truth  of 
my  doctrine.  Is  there  not  in  the  reader's  bosom,  a  mor- 
al sense  ?  an  innate,  involuntary,  self-constituted  tribu- 
nal and  judge  of  the  morality  or  immorality  of  actions. 

2.  This  judge  is  incorruptible — you  may  suppose  him 
blind,  but  you  are  mistaken.  He  will  speak  out  in  due 
time. 

3.  This  judge  is  immortal  as  the  soul. 

4.  I  appeal  to  you  to  prove  the  principle  of  self-love. 
You  desire  to  be  happy.     You  dread  misery. 

5.  I  appeal  to  the  immortal  witness  and  judge  within 
you,  that  you  know  and  believe  happiness  to  be  insep- 
arable from  holiness,  and  misery  from  sin. 

6.  Will  you  peril  your  eternal  interests,  by  continu- 
ance in  sin  ? 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON  THE  PARTICULAR  MODIFICATION  OF  MORAL  GOVERN- 
MENT, AS  IT  WAS  EXTENDED  OVER  MAN  IN  HIS  PRIMI- 
TIVE CONDITION  ;    OR,  THE    COVENANT  OF  WORKS. 

SECTION  I. 

7%e  primeval  state  of  man,  anterior  to  the  formation  of 
the  covenant,  considered  intellectually,  morally 
and  legally. 

It  is  not  intended  by  the  title  of  this  section,  to  inti- 
mate, that  man  existed  any  considerable  time,  before 
God  entered  into  covenant  with  him.  The  object  is 
simply  to  present  a  view  of  his  qualities,  character,  and 
condition,  in  the  particular  respects  referred  to,  apart 
from  the  peculiar  moral  constitution,  under  which  he 
was  placed.  This  seems  necessary  in  order  to  a  right 
understanding  of  that  constitution. 

1st.  Intellectually.  He  was  endowed  with  a  knowl- 
edge of  things  around  him.  He  was  not  thrown  into 
being,  and  into  the  midst  of  a  countless  number  of  fel- 
low creatures,  utterly  ignorant  of  himself  and  of  them ; 
of  his  own  capacities  and  powers,  and  of  theirs  ;  as  the 
schemes  of  theorising  philosophers,  would  seem  to  have 
it.  In  their  speculations,  men  have  been  fond  to  account 
for  the  formation  of  language,  spoken  and  written — of 
the  manner  in  which  man  acquired  a  knowledge  of  his 
own  soul,  and  of  the  Creator's  being  and  perfections  ;  of 
the  relations  that  exist  between  man  and  his  maker,  and 
also  between  him  and  the  creatures  around  him.  Much 
has  been  laboriously  written  about  the  origin  and  pro- 
gress of  language — how,  from  the  rude  sounds  in  nature, 
names  would  be  given  to  things,  and  these  transferred  to 
similar  things,  &c. 
4 


38  PRIMEVAL  STATE  OF  MAN. 

All  such  speculations  are  based  on  the  false  and  mis- 
guided assumption,  that  man  was  formed  capable  of  ac- 
quiring knowledge,  but  was  not  created  "in  knowl- 
edge." 

The  Bible  presents  a  more  rational  account,  and  one 
which  casts  no  such  reproach  upon  the  wisdom  and 
goodness  of  the  Creator.  It  assures  us  that  "  God  cre- 
ated man  after  his  own  image,"  and  that  this  consisted 
partly  in  knowledge — "  Renewed  in  knowledge  after  the 
image  of  him  that  created  him  ;"  which  shows  conclu- 
sively, that  the  image  after  which  man  was  created,  con- 
sisted partly  in  knowledge.  And  the  manner  in  which 
God  represents  himself  as  conversing  with  man  imme- 
diately after  his  creation,  implies  his  possession  of  the 
faculty  of  speech,  and  of  the  art  of  reasoning,  and  of  a 
language  which  formed  the  vehicle  of  thought.  "  The 
Lord  God  commanded  the  man."  Will  it  here  be  pre- 
tended, that  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  spoken  lan- 
guage ;  it  may  only  have  been  an  impression  produced 
upon  the  mind  without  speech  ?  But  of  this  there  is  no 
evidence,  and  we  have  indubitable  evidence,  a  little  af- 
ter, that  the  man  did  speak  of  the  woman,  and  to  the 
woman,  and  to  God  ;  and  there  is  the  same  certainty 
that  the  woman  spake  to  the  serpent  and  to  her  husband. 
Equally  baseless  is  the  hypothesis,  that  man  was  left  to 
gather  his  knowledge  of  the  creatures  around  him,  from 
experience  alone — that  he  was  not  indued  with  knowl- 
edge by  the  Creator.  God  told  him  much  concerning 
them.  He  prescribed  to  Adam  the  limit  of  his  authority 
over  them,  and  the  uses  to  which  they  might  be  ap- 
plied. 

Equally  without  foundation  is  the  assumption,  that 
man  was  left  to  decypher  the  Creator's  being,  attributes, 
and  requirements  from  the  creation  around  him.  On 
the  contrary,  God  gave  him  a  law,  and  in  this,  commu- 
nicated to  him,  a  knowledge  of  his  own  will :  as  in  the 
command  to  be  fruitful,  to  use  the  creatures,  under  cer- 
tain restrictions,  to  dress  and  keep  the  garden.  And 
after  the  creation  of  the  woman,  a  knowledge  of  her  re- 
lation to  himself  was  given  to  him,  and  of  the  obligations 
it  involved.     Indeed  the  idea  of  Adam's  utter  ignorance. 


PRIMEVAL  STATE  OF  MAN.  39 

his  being  left  to  grope  his  way  to  knowledge,  is  so  gross 
an  absurdity,  that  I  am  aware  the  reader  will  not  tolerate 
much  delay  in  the  disproof.  He  feels  that  it  is  a  mere 
waste  of  time.  But  then,  let  him  please  to  remember 
that  on  this  very  assumption,  gross  as  it  is,  the  enemies 
of  revelation,  and  some  of  its  misguided  friends,  have 
built  their  respective  systems,  the  one  to  corrupt,  the 
other  to  destroy  all  confidence  in  the  Bible.  If  you  con- 
cede, that  man  originally  had  no  revelation  from  his 
Creator,  but  was  left  to  discover  the  divine  being  and 
perfections,  by  reason,  you  exalt  reason  at  the  expense 
of  truth,  and  give  her  a  power  which  she  never  possess- 
ed. Hence  the  infidel  gains  his  most  plausible  advanta- 
ges against  revelation.  But,  on  the  contrary,  if  you 
hold  to  the  facts,  as  inferible  by  reason,  and  as  taught 
in  the  Bible,  you  have  the  necessity  of  revelation  estab- 
lished, prior  to  the  fall  of  man.  He  never  existed 
without  revelation.  God  revealed  himself  to  man — 
made  known  his  own  being  and  perfections,  to  a  certain 
extent — man's  own  qualities,  relations,  and  duties,  at 
his  creation,  and  before  the  fall. 

If  again,  you  concede  this  degree  of  ignorance — if  you 
grant  that  Adam  knew  nothing  at  all,  then  the  corrupter 
of  Bible  doctrine  infers,  that  there  could  be  no  covenant 
of  works,  no  representative  relation  of  Adam  to  his  pos- 
terity— no  moral  headship  ;  and  by  good  and  necessary 
consequence,  there  can  be  no  covenant  of  grace,  no  head- 
ship of  a  second  Adam — no  imputation  of  his  righteous- 
ness, <fec.  Thus  by  this  one  rash  admission,  you  put 
it  beyond  your  power  to  defend  the  citadel  of  truth ; 
you  virtually  abandon  the  Bible  to  its  foes,  and  sport 
away  the  hopes  of  a  ruined  world. 

But,  whilst  the  truth  is  to  be  maintained,  that  man 
had  communicated  to  him,  directly  from  God,  much 
valuable  information  before  his  fall,  and  the  neces-? 
sity  of  a  revelation  even  then,  and  hence  its  superior 
necessity  now;  it  is  not  to  be  affirmed  that  Adam  pos- 
sessed the  knowledge  of  all  nature,  and  of  all  art,  and  of 
all  divine  perfections.  This  absurdity,  for  sinister  pur^ 
poses,  is  attempted  to  be  forced  upon  us,  that  by  repre-* 
senting  the  doctrine  of  primeval  revelation  in  a  ludicrous 


40  PRIMEVAL  STATE  OF  MAN. 

point  of  view,  the  true  doctrine  may  be  brought  into 
contempt.  We  have  not  said  that  God  revealed  all 
things  to  Adam.  But  we  do  say  that  he  communicated 
to  him  much  knowledge,  and  furnished  him  with  rea- 
soning faculties,  by  the  right  use  of  which,  he  might  in- 
definitely extend  the  range  of  his  intellect  and  the  sphere 
of  his  knowledge. 

2.  Morality — We  have  seen,  that  a  moral  sense  is 
essentially  necessary  to  a  moral  being.  Man  possessed 
this.  He  had  a  heart,  as  well  as  a  head,  to  know  good 
and  evil,  to  judge  of  right  and  wrong.  To  this  his  Crea- 
tor addressed  himself,  when  he  prescribed  duty,  and  pro- 
hibited sin.  But  it  is  more  important  to  remark,  that 
these  moral  powers  were  in  an  attitude  for  right  action. 
In  other  words,  man  was  created  in  a  state  of  moral  rec- 
titude. 

This  may  be  viewed  in  a  two-fold  aspect.  He  was, 
on  the  one  hand,  free  from  every  corrupt  principle,  feel- 
ing, inclination,  or  disposition.  This  is  what  the  old 
divines  would  call  negative  holiness.  He  was  also  po- 
sitively inclined  to  right  action — having  the  will  and  af- 
fections turned  towards  holy  things.  Both  are  included 
in  the  language  of  Solomon,  "  God  hath  made  man  up- 
right.'' This  moral  rectitude  may  be  most  satisfactory 
proved,  by  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  sanctification, 
which  is  spoken  of,  as  a  changing  of  his  people  "from 
glory  to  glory"  into  the  same  image.  The  image  of 
God,  after  which  man  was  created,  consisted  in  holiness, 
or  moral  rectitude,  "  be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy"  "  as 
we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthly,  we  shall  also 
bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly."  "  Sanctify  them 
through  thy  truth." 

3.  But  the  legal  primitive  condition  of  man  is  chiefly 
important  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  covenant  of 
works.  He  was  under  a  law,  bound  to  act  agreeablv 
to  the  will  of  God,  so  far  as  made  known  to  him. 
To  no  truth  does  the  human  mind  assent,  more 
readily,  than  to  the  affirmation,  that  the  rational  creature 
is  bound  to  obey  the  Creator.  If  the  human  mind  can 
have  no  distinct  perception  of  a  rational,  immortal  crea- 
ture, under  no  obligation  of  obedience  to  him,  who  sus- 


PRIMEVAL  STATE  OF  MAN.  41 

tains  its  existence ;  at  least  I  think  it  impossible  to  be- 
lieve in  the  reality  of  such  a  state.  If  there  is  no  neces- 
sary obligation,  there  can  be  no  dependance,  and  we 
have  the  anomaly  of  an  independent  creature  !  On  the 
contrary,  if  the  notion  of  an  independent  creature  be  en- 
tirely unreasonable,  then  we  must  admit  the  existence 
of  moral  obligation  lying  upon  man  by  a  necessity  of  his 
condition.  Anterior  to  all  covenant  transaction  and  re- 
lation, man  was  bound  to  perfect  obedience  to  the  divine 
will.  In  other  words,  he  was  under  a  moral  govern- 
ment. For,  as  Witsius  observes,  "  Adam  sustained  a 
two-fold  relation.  1st.  As  man.  2.  As  the  head  and 
representative  of  mankind.  In  the  former  relation  he 
was  a  rational  creature,  under  the  law,  to  God,  upright, 
created  after  the  image  of  God,  and  furnished  with  suffi- 
cient power  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  B.  1st.  ch.  2d. 
sec  3d.  Adam  stood  alone  and  was  individually  account- 
able to  God.  Should  he  act  contrary  to  the  divine  will 
made  known  to  him,  he  must  abide  the  just  consequen- 
ces of  his  action — he  must  be  punished  as  God  might 
think  suitable  to  his  government  to  inflict.  Should  he 
obey,  he  must  be  rewarded  accordingly.  But  in  the  re- 
sults of  his  actions  himself  alone  would  be  necessarily, 
or  indeed  justly  involved.  Such  is  supposed  to  be,  and 
to  have  been  the  condition  of  the  angels.  It  is  not  known 
to  us  that  they  have  ever  been  on  probation  in  any  other 
respect  than  as  individuals  ;  each  standing  or  falling  for 
himself,  each  receiving  the  reward  or  punishment,  al- 
lotted by  the  Creator  to  his  obedience  or  sin,  as  the 
case  might  be.  Had  man  been  left  to  multiply  and  re- 
plenish the  earth,  whilst  in  this  his  strictly  primitve  es- 
tate, it  may  be  conceived  that  some  would  have  fallen, 
whilst  others  would  have  remained  steadfast  in  their  obe- 
dience, as  it  has  actually  proved  with  the  angels.  The 
fall  of  one  might  have  affected  the  condition  and  standing 
of  another,  by  way  of  example  and  through  the  force  of 
natural  connexions;  still  those  maintaining  their  integri- 
ty, would  have  been  retained  in  their  state  of  blessed- 
ness. But  I  cannot  see  how  and  on  what  principle  they 
could  be  confirmed,  at  any  given  period  in  that  state,  so 
as  to  be  henceforth  incapable  of  falling  into  sin.  In 
4* 


42  OF  A  COVENANT  IN  GENERAL. 

other  words,  I  cannot  see  how  there  could  arise  any 
claim  on  the  part  of  man,  to  any  thing  but  present  en- 
joyment, except  from  a  special  act  of  condescension  and 
love  on  the  part  of  God.  Some  gratuitous  pledge  or 
promise  of  God,- must  be  necessary  to  produce  and  jus- 
tify in  man's  mind,  the  faith  of  an  endless  life  and  bless- 
edness.  Until  such  a  pledge  or  promise  should  be 
given,  he  could  not  conceivably  have  a  claim  of  right  in 
perpetuity  of  bliss.  His  continuance  for  a  long  time  in 
a  state  of  obedience,  could  create  no  obligation  upon  the 
Creator  prospectively,  so  that  God  should  be  bound  to 
secure  him  forever.  But  if  at  any  period,  no  matter  how 
far  removed  from  his  origin,  he  sinned,  he  must  die. 
Or  as  Dr.  Bates  in  his  Harmony  of  the  Divine  Attributes 
expresses  the  thought, (vol.  1st.  189.)  "Thus  holy  and 
blessed  was  Adam  in  his  primitive  state  and  that  he 
might  continue  so,  he  was  obliged  forever  to  obey  the 
will  of  God, who  bestowed  upon  him  life  and  happiness. 
By  the  first  neglect  of  this  duty,  he  would  most  justly 
and  inevitably  incur  the  loss  of  both."  Again,  <;and  from 
hence  it  follows  that  man  only  was  in  a  state  of  moral 
dependance,  and  capable  of  a  law." — "  And  as  it  is  im- 
possible that  man  should  be  exempt  from  a  law" — 190 
Such  was  the  strictly  primitive  condition  of  man — a  state 
of  moral  dependance,  a  state  of  trial  or  probation,  indi- 
vidually only,  not  socially — a  state  as  far  as  we  know, 
not  necessarily  limited,  but  capable  of  perhaps,  intermi- 
nable duration,  in  every  stage  of  whose  progress  there 
was  a  possibility  of  falling  and  being  lost — a  state  whose 
change  for  the  better,  must  be  a  matter  of  pure  benevo- 
lent gratuitousness  on  the  part  of  the  supreme  governor* 

SECTION  II. 

Of  a  Covenant  in  General. 

One  of  the  simplest  ideas  in  the  whole  science  of  mor- 
als, is  the  general  notion  of  a  covena?it,  compact  or  mu- 
tual agreement.  It  includes  three  leading  items,  viz  : 
the  parties,  the  terms,  and  the  voluntary  assent  or  agree- 
ment.     Blackstone,  the  great  commentator  upon  Eng- 


OF   A  COVENANT    IN  GENERAL.  43 

lish  law,  speaking  of  the  parts  of  a  deed,  says  "  after 
warrants,  usually  follow  covenants,  or  conventions,  which 
are  clauses  of  agreement  contained  in  a  deed,  whereby 
either  party  may  stipulate  for  the  truth  of  certain  facts, 
or  may  bind  himself  to  perform,  or  give  something  to  the 
other."  vol.  n ;  20 — 7.  Here  are  mentioned  the  par- 
ties, the  terms,  the  agreement.  These  exist  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  thing,  and  therefore  all  writers  who  treat  on 
the  subject  must  and  do,  either  formally  or  inadvertently 
admit  and  recognise  them.  The  great  charter  of  Eng- 
land, in  which  she  glories  as  the  palladium  of  her  liber- 
ties, is  simply  a  covenant  between  the  two  belligerent 
parties,  the  king  heading  the  interests  of  arbitrary  power 
on  the  one  hand ;  and  the  nation,  the  people  claiming 
their  rights  on  the  other ;  the  subject  matter  of  the  char- 
ter is  the  terms  of  the  covenant :  and  its  ratification  is 
the  expression  of  their  agreement. 

So  treaties  between  independent  nations  are  covenants, 
and,  like  other  covenants,  they  may  and  often  do  exist 
between  three  or  more  parties. 

So,  the  Constitution  of  our  general  government,  is  a 
covenant,  between  the  states  respectively,  who  are  the 
parties  to  it. 

Here  it  may  be  for  edification  to  state  a  few  things  in 
regard  to  the  parts  severally.  1,  As  to  the  parties. 
They  must  be  moral  agents — intelligent  beings,  endow- 
ed with  a  moral  sense  by  which  to  understand  the  na- 
ture, and  feel  the  force  of  moral  obligation.  2,  They 
must  have  a  right  of  control  over  all  that  which  forms 
the  terms  of  the  covenant.  A  man  cannot  rightly  cov- 
enant to  do  what  he  has  no  right  to  do.  3,  The  parties 
must  have  the  exercise  of  volition.  There  can  be  no 
agreement  where  there  is  compulsion  of  the  nature  of 
coertion  or  force.  And  yet  perfect  freedom  from  all 
kind  of  coercion  is  not  requisite  in  a  covenanting  par- 
ty. Or  4,  in  other  words,  the  absence  of  all  coercion 
by  moral  force — the  force  of  motives  operating  upon 
choice,  is  not  indispensable.  A  nation  may  be  vanquish- 
ed, and  compelled  to  make  a  disadvantageous  treaty,  and 
yet  if  that  treaty  do  not  involve  the  abandonment  of  mor- 
al principle,  they  may  not  violate  it.     And  hence  5,  per- 


44  OF  A  COVENANT  IN  GENERAL. 

feet  equality  is  not  necessary,  in  the  parties  to  a  cove- 
nant. They  may  differ  in  intellectual,  in  moral  and  in 
physical  power,  and  yet  covenant  with  each  other,  and 
in  fact  this  is  always  the  case.  There  is  never  a  perfect 
equality.  The  commonwealth  has  determined  to  take 
my  land  for  a  public  use  ;  and  yet  I  as  one  party  may 
enter  into  a  covenant  with  the  commonwealth  as  the 
other,  and  yet  this  inequality  of  our  condition  does  not 
nullify  the  agreement.  I  have  a  choice  still.  I  may 
agree  upon  terms,  or  abide  the  issue  of  a  contest.  If  I 
sign  an  agreement,  it  is  binding.  "He  sweareth  to  his 
hurt  and  changeth  not."     Psalms  xv.  4. 

As  to  the  terms,  1,  There  is  a  stipulation  of  some- 
thing to  be  done  or  given  by  the  party  proposing  the 
covenant.  2,  A  astipulation  by  the  other  party,  of 
something  to  be  done  or  given  in  consideration.  And 
3,  these  two  things  are  in  theory,  if  not  in  fact,  equiva- 
lent. 4.  These  equivalents  must  be  in  themselves  law- 
ful and  right ;  for  it  never  can  be  right  to  engage  to  do 
wrong.  5,  There  is  a  penalty  included  in  the  terms  of 
a  covenant.  That  is  ,some  evil  consequence  to  result  to 
the  party  who  may,  and  shall  violate  his  engagement. 
This  very  often  includes  more  than  a  mere  negative, 
more  than  the  simple  forfeiture  or  loss  of  all  the  advan- 
tages professed  to  be  secured.  It  extends  to  the  posi- 
tive visitation  of  evil  upon  the  covenant  breaker.  It  is 
usual  to  place  this  as  an  appendage,  but  it  certainly  be- 
longs to  the  terms,  for  the  parties  agree  to  the  forfeiture 
conditionally.  The  penalty  is  added  as  a  security,  and 
the  philosophy  of  the  thing  will  appear,  if  you  reflect, 
that  the  object  of  every  lawful  and  binding  covenant  is  to 
secure  some  good.  Here  the  principle  of  hope  is  ad- 
dressed, and  the  penalty  is  addressed  to  fear ;  and  thus 
self-love  is  enlisted,  by  the  strongest  motives,  to  fortify 
virtue  and  to  sustain  truth. 

As  to  the  agreement,  or  voluntary  assent  to  the  terms. 
it  implies  1,  a  knowledge  of  them  ;  2,  a  distinct  compar- 
ison in  the  mind,  of  the  equivalents  contained  in  the 
terms — the  probable  advantages  and  the  possible  disad- 
vantages. In  short,  all  those  processes  of  thought  which 
present  motives  to  the   mind  and  operate  upon  choice. 


OF  GOD'S  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM.  45 

3,  Volition,  the  mind   assenting  to  the  proposition,  and 

4,  the  expression  of  that  assent  in  the  confirmation  of 
the  covenant.     Such  is  the  general  substance — such  the 
simple  ideas   included  in  the  common  notion  of  a  cove- 
nant.    Now  you  will  observe,  that  these  are  among  the 
original  elements  of  that  morality  which  constitutes  the 
basis  of  all  human  society.     Without  these  principles 
where  were   government?  And  especially  where   could 
you  find  free  government — government  founded  on  com- 
promise— government  where  powers  are  balanced,  and 
rights  hedged  around  by  the  eternal  ramparts  of  impreg- 
nable truth  1   Whose  imagination  can  gender  the  concep- 
tion of  social  organization  without  the  essential  elements 
of  a  covenant  ?  Society  necessarily  implies  a  plurality  of 
persons— and  can  even  a  bare  plurality — "  can  two  walk 
together  except  they  be  agreed?"   No,  not  the  tenderest 
and  most  endearing  of  all  human  societies — the  loved  re- 
lation which  forms  the  basis  of  all  others,  can  come  into 
being,  and  exist  without  it.     And  the  measure  of  perfec- 
tion and  of  bliss  in  all  other  human  associations,  is  de- 
termined by  the  reverence,  and  sanctity,  and  sacredness, 
and  inviolability  of  the  marriage  covenant. 

Without  these  principles,  how  will  you  organize  gov- 
ernment? How  can  you  talk  about  it?  How  can  you 
think  about  it  ? 

Without  these  principles,  how  will  you  conduct  busi- 
ness ?  How  will  you  manage  the  commerce  of  society  ? 
— But  I  forbear. — All  men  everv  where,  see  and  feel  and 
know,  that  the  doctrines  involved  in  a  simple  covenant, 
are  the  intrinsic,  innate,  essential,  and  indestructible  prin- 
ciples of  social  man.  They  are  not  separable  from  his 
nature,  they  are  his  nature  itself,  he  would  not  be  man 
without  them, 

SECTION  III 

Of  God's  Covenant  with  Adam. 

We   are  next  to  inquire,  whether   God  entered  into 
covenant  with  man,  and  what  its  terms,  effects,  etc. 
1,  The  terms  Berith  and  8ia$r(xr(  translated  in  the  Old 


46  OF  GOD'S  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM. 

and  New  Testaments  respectively,  by  the  English  word 
covenant,  have  not  the  same  original  meaning*  The  He- 
brew word  signifies  to  cut,  and  obviously  is  founded  on, 
or  perhaps  more  correctly,  is  applied  because  of,  the  an- 
cient form  of  confirming  a  covenant,  which  was  by  cut- 
ting and  killing  an  animal  and  dividing  it  into  parts,  be* 
tween  which,  the  covenanting  parties  passed.  Thus 
Abraham  divided  the  carcases,  when  God  established 
his  covenant  with  him. — (Gen.  15.)  To  which  ceremo- 
ny, there  is  also  distinct  reference  in  Jer.  xxxiv.  18 — 19. 
"I  will  give  the  men  that  have  transgressed  my  cove- 
nant, which  have  not  performed  the  words  of  the  cove- 
nant, which  they  had  made  before  me,  when  they  cut  the 
calf  in  twain,  and  passed  between  the  parts  thereof,  into 
the  hands  of  their  enemies."  This  custom  existed 
among  the  Romans  in  a  later  age,  as  is  exemplified  in 
the  case  of  the  federal  compact  between  the  Albani 
and  them,  in  reference  to  the  fight  of  the  Horatii  and 
the  Curatii,  on  the  issue  of  which,  the  fate  of  the 
two  nations  was  to  depend.  In  confirming  this  cove- 
nant, after  the  terms  were  repeated,  the  officer  strikes  a 
hog  with  a  flint-stone,  pronouncing  the  words  of  the  im- 
precation, praying  Jupiter,  in  case  the  Roman  people 
should  first  violate  the  covenant,  he  would  so  strike  them, 
and  with  so  much  more  power  as  he  is  stronger  than 
man. — (Livy,  b.  I.  24.)  Hence  the  phrase  extant  among 
us  at  this  day  ;  to  strike  a  bargain,  is,  to  close  a  contract. 

The  term  (Sta^x*/)  in  the  New  Testament  comes  near- 
er the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  thing ;  it  is  a  disposition 
an  arrangement  of  things — an  agreement. 

2.  But  after  all,  words  are  arbitrary  signs  of  things, 
and  we  are  never  safe  in  trusting  to  a  single  term,  as 
though  from  it  alone,  we  could  collect  the  right  knowl- 
edge of  the  thing.  Now  our  inquiry  is  into  the  thing  it- 
self. What  are  the  matters  of  fact  to  which  these  terms 
are  applied?  Is  there  any  moral  transaction  between 
God  and  man,  wherein  the  principles  above  recited,  are 
involved?  Is  there  any  proposition  made,  by  God  to 
man,  of  something  to  be  done  by  the  latter  ?  Any  astip- 
ulation of  something  to  be  done  by  the  former  ?  Any 
agreement  of  both  ?  Any  penal  sanction  ? 


OF  GOD's  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM.  47 

To  all  such  interrogations  every  superficial  reader  of 
the  Bible— much  more  every  accurate  observer  of  its 
contents,  must  answer  affirmatively.  Let  us  look  then 
into  the  detail. — And  1.  As  to  the  competency  of  the 
parties — God  and  Adam  ;  both  are  intelligent  moral  be- 
ings, qualified  to  enter  into  any  arrangement  whose  ten- 
dencies are  to  the  glory  of  the  one,  and  the  happiness  of 
the  other;  both  in  the  exercise  of  volition,  and  neither 
coerced  beyond  the   power  of  mere  motives  to  choice. 

God  leaves  Adam  to  choose  his  course — he  does  exer- 
cise volition  and  that,  under  no  constraining  perils  cal- 
culated to  interfere  with  his  choice.  This  is  perfectly 
plain  and  indisputable.  For  the  objection,  that  Adam 
could  not  refuse — he  dared  not  object  to  the  terms  ; 
rests  on  a  flimsy  foundation:  because  it  rests  on  a  posi- 
tive falsehood — standing  out  in  bold  opposition  to  the 
plain  and  undeniable  fact.  Adam  did  exercise  his  voli- 
tion— he  did  dare  to  choose  in  opposition  to  God's  will 
and  that  after  he  had  at  first  acquiesced  in  it.  The  fact 
of  his  acquiescence  will  appear  hereafter  ;  but  the  fact 
of  his  choosing  to  act  contrary  to  God's  expressed  will, 
"  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it."  is  acknowledged  by  himself ; 
and  all  his  posterity  do  the  same.  Yet  it  is  true,  in  one 
sense,  that  he  could  not  object. — He  could  not  without 
sin :  still  he  did  it.  Hence  it  is  undeniable,  he  did 
choose, 

2.  As  to  the  terms.  They  are  briefly  related  in,  or 
inferable  from  the  language  of  the  Bible.  "  And  the 
Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  of  every  tree  of 
the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat;  but  of  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it ;  for 
in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die," 
Let  us  now  see  whether  this  language  contains  the  five 
items  of  a  covenant.  1.  We  have  a  stipulation  of  some- 
thing required  of  Adam — in  abstinence  from  the  fruit  of 
the  tree,  in  obedience  to  divine  will.  The  command  is 
a  positive  law  and  a  test  of  Adam's  obedience  as  effectu- 
al and  even  more  simple,  than  if  it  related  to  some  gen- 
eral duty.  For  his  way  was  hedged  up,  so  that  he  could 
sin  only  in  this  one  thing.  All  the  principles  and  ten- 
dencies of  his  nature  were  accordant  to  the  moral  law  of 


48  of  god's  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM. 

his  creation.  This  then  was  the  only  avenue  he  had 
to  guard.  And  in  narrowing  down  the  field  of  tempta- 
tion, God  gave  him  the  vantage  ground  over  his  enemy. 
2.  We  see  proffered  to  Adam,  life,  as  the  reward,  or  con- 
sideration of  his  obedience.  For  according  to  the  sim- 
plest laws  of  construction,  the  threatening  of  death  as 
a  consequence  of  eating,  involves  the  promise  of  life 
to  obedience.  So  Adam  understood  it,  so  Eve  under- 
stood it,  "  ye  shall  not  eat  of  it — lest  ye  die."  This  is  al- 
leged as  a  reason  for  not  eating.  Life  is  desirable,  and 
and  we  shall  have  it,  so  long  as  we  abstain.  In  the  laws  of 
the  commonwealth,  which  award  death  to  the  murderer, 
the  principle  is  assumed  that  the  enjoyment  of  life  belongs 
to  him  who  exercises  the  opposite  feelings  and  the  con- 
duct to  which  they  prompt.  So  here ;  the  eating,  or 
disobediedience  is  connected  with  death,  and  the  not 
eating,  or  obedience  is  connected  with  life.  3.  Here  is 
the  theoretic  equivalent.  The  honor  done  to  God  and 
his  moral  government,  He  is  pleased  in  condescension 
and  kindnesss  and  love,  to  account  as  an  equivalent  to 
the  felicity  of  man  to  the  whole  extent  of  that  included 
in  the  term  life.  4.  These  equivalents  are  in  them- 
selves right.  Unfaltering  compliance  with  the  will  of 
God  in  all  things,  even  the  most  minute  and  apparently 
trifling,  is  infinitely  proper  in  itself,  and  infinitely  im- 
portant to  the  moral  universe.  The  proffer  of  eternal 
felicity  as  a  reward  for  so  poor  a  service  as  was  required 
of  man,  was  certainly  not  wrong,  but  altogether  in  keep- 
ing with  the  boundless  benevolence  of  the  everlasting 
Father.  5.  The  penal  sanction  is  explicitly  set  forth  in 
the  language,  and  as  to  the  reality  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Some  questions  we  have  to  settle  as  to  the  extent  of  the 
blessing  and  the  curse :  but  the  things  themselves  are 
indisputable. 

3.  The  voluntary  assent  of  the  parties  ;  and  as  in 
every  covenant,  one  party  must  make  the  proposition — 
God  proposes  the  terms  as  an  expression  of  his  will, 
which  is  an  assent  or  agreement.  God's  commanding 
man  not  to  eat,  is  his  consent. 

As  to  man,  it  has  been  already  observed,  he  could 
not  without  unreasonable  opposition   to   his    Creator's 


OF  GGD*S  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM.  49 

will,  refuse  any  terms  which  the  wisdom  and  benevo- 
lence of  God  would  allow  him  to  proffer.  Hence  we 
should  conclude,  Adam  must  most  cheerfully  accede  to 
the  terms.  But  this  the  more  readily,  when  their  nature 
is  inspected — when  he  should  see  in  them  every  thing 
adapted  for  his  advantage,  and  nothing  to  his  disadvan- 
tage. 

The  same  conclusion  we  deduce  from  an  inspection 
of  the  scripture  history.  For  1,  there  is  not  a  hint  at 
any  thing  like  a  refusal  on  the  part  of  Adam,  before  the 
act  of  violation.  The  whole  history  is  perfectly  consis- 
tent with  the  supposition  that  he  did  cheerfully  agree. 
2,  It  is  evident  that  Eve  thought  the  command  most 
reasonable  and  proper.  She  so  expressed  herself  to  the 
serpent,  giving  God's  command  as  a  reason  of  her  ab- 
stinence. This  information  she  must  have  derived  from 
her  husband,  for  she  was  not  created  at  the  time  the 
covenant  was  given  to  Adam.  We  hence  infer  Adam's 
consent.  3,  Adam  was,  after  his  sin,  abundantly  dis- 
posed to  excuse  himself — he  cast  the  blame  upon  the 
woman,  and  indirectly  upon  God,  for  giving  her  to  him. 
"  The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me,  she 
gave  me  of  the  tree,  and  I  did  eat."  Now  most  as- 
suredly, if  Adam  could  in  truth  have  said,  I  never  con- 
sented to  abstain — I  never  agreed  to  the  terms  proposed 
— I  have  broken  no  pledge — he  would  have  presented 
this  apology,  or  justification.  But  he  was  dumb  :  he 
offered  no  such  apology.  Can  any  reasonable  man 
want  further  evidence  of  his  consent  ?  Even  this  may 
be  had,  if  he  will,  4,  look  at  the  consequences.  The 
penal  evils  did  result — sorrow  and  death  did  ensue ;  and 
hence,  because  God  is  righteous,  we  infer  the  legal  re- 
lations. The  judge  of  all  the  earth  would  not  punish, 
where  there  is  no  crime. 
5 


CHAPTER  III. 

ON  THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  COVENANT  :  OR,  THE  REPRESEN- 
TATIVE CHARACTER  OF  ADAM. 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  first  man  stood  in 
a  ''two-fold  relation,  1.  As  man.  2.  As  the  head  and 
representative  of  mankind."  We  have  viewed  the  cov- 
enant in  reference  to  the  former  only.  Our  attention 
must  now  be  turned  to  the  latter. 

SECTION  I. 

The  General  Doctrine  of  Representation. 

To  represent  is  to  act  in  the  legal  character  of  another 
— to  sustain  his  relations  in  law — to  act  for  him.  The 
term  is  commonly  used,  in  civil,  as  well  as  in  religious 
things,  to  express  in  brief,  the  whole  doctrine  of  prin- 
cipal and  agent.  And  I  prefer  it  to  any  other  term, 
though  it  be  not  found  in  our  English  Bible  ;  because 
there  is  no  other  term  in  the  language,  which,  to  a  re- 
publican ear,  sounds  more  harmoniously,  or  conveys  the 
idea  more  clearly.  All  Americans  are  so  familiar  with 
it,  and  with  the  doctrine  which  it  is  used  to  express, 
that  to  their  understanding  it  speaks  a  volume.  Every 
American  who  is  lifted  above  brutish  ignorance,  knows, 
that  a  representative  is  one  who  acts  for  others,  in  the 
making  and  execution  of  laws,  or  the  transaction  of  busi- 
ness ;  and  that,  by  consequence,  those  who  are  repre- 
sented, are  bound  by  the  acts  of  their  representatives, 
just  as  though  they  had  been  performed  by  themselves 
immediately.  It  has  always  therefore  appeared  to  me 
futile  in  the  extreme,  to  object  to  the  word  merely  be- 
cause it  is  not  a  Bible  term.  Hundreds  of  words  are  in 
constant  use,  by  the  very  persons  who  raise  such  ob- 


THE  GENERAL  DOCTRINE  OF  REPRESENTATION.    51 

jections,  which  are  not  found  in  our  English  Bibles. 
Moreover,  the  inconsistency  of  such  objectors  is  the 
more  glaring,  from  the  fact,  that  they  are  for  discarding 
the  use  of  the  Bible  term  Covenant,  yea,  and  the  thing 
too,  and  for  introducing  a  new  nomenclature,  such  as 
"  providential  development" — "  God's  moral  constitu- 
tion"— "  social  organization,"  &c. 

But  let  us  hold  to  the  doctrine.  It  can  be  expressed 
by  a  variety  of  terms.  It  is  a  fact,  the  evidence  of 
which,  is  as  long  and  as  broad  as  civilized  society,  that 
one  man  performs  moral  acts,  binding  in  right,  and  in 
law,  by  the  agency  of  another.  It  is  not  the  goose  quill, 
nor  the  flesh  and  bone  and  muscle  that  hold  it,  which 
makes  the  contract  contained  in  the  deed  ;  but  it  is  the 
rational  mind  which  acts  by,  and  through  them,  as  in- 
struments. And  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  same  rational  mind 
does  make  use  of  another  pen  and  another  hand  too,  to 
confirm  and  ratify  a  similar  contract.  Here  there  is  no 
room  for  discussion,  to  elicit  proof  of  the  fact,  or  to 
throw  light  on  the  doctrine  of  representation.  The  only 
question  that  seems  admissible,  is  the  philosophical  en- 
quiry, how  can  this  be  ?  How  can  A  transfer,  as  it  were, 
his  moral  person  into  B  ;  so  that  B's  moral  transaction 
with  C,  is  not  his  own,  and  does  not  bind  him,  but  is 
A's  and  binds  him  only  ? 

Now  if  any  man  insist  on  a  reply  to  this  enquiry,  and 
desire  to  make  the  inexplicability  of  the  fact,  an  objec- 
tion to  the  doctrine,  I  answer,  he  is  no;  philosopher. 
For  it  is  no  part  of  sound  philosophy,  to  make  the  inex- 
plicability of  a  fact  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  which 
contains  it.  It  is  no  part  of  philosophy  to  accommodate 
facts  to  a  theory — but  on  the  contrary,  the  glory  of  the 
modern  philosophy  consists  in  admitting  facts,  however 
inexplicable,  upon  good  and  sufficient  proof,  and  build- 
ing the  theory  and  the  doctrine  upon  them.  Who  does 
not  know  that  the  fact  of  gravitation  is  as  yet  inexplica- 
ble ?  Who  does  not  know  that  the  facts  of  magnetic  nt- 
traction  are  unexplained  ?  And  yet  does  any  philosopher 
deny  them?  Just  so,  who  knows  not  the  fact,  that  one 
man  often  acts  by  and  through  another?  What  then  if 
we  cannot  explain  the  mode  of  the  fact  ?  It  is  undenia 


52    THE  GENERAL  DOCTRINE  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

ble,  that  I  can  transact  business,  that  shall  be  binding  in 
law  and  conscience,  in  a  hundred  different  places  at  the 
same  time  ;  a  hundred  miles  distant  from  each  other, 
and  not  be  present  personally  in  either  of  them  ?  Do 
you  say  "  how  can  these  things  be."  We  testify  things 
we  do  know,  and  the  objector  is  just  as  much  bound 
to  explain  the  facts  as  we  are. 

The  truth  is,  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  unity  between 
two  or  more  persons,  is  an  original  element  in  the  sci- 
ence of  morals.     An  identity   exists  between  the  agent 
and  his  principal — they  are  one  in  law,  to  the  whole  ex- 
tent of  the  agency ;  that  is,  to  the  whole  extent  of  the 
representative   authority.     Now    it  is   clearly  manifest, 
that  the  actual  existence  of  this  moral  unity  is  one  thing, 
and   the  mariner  in  which  it  is  constituted  is    another 
thing.     These  two  may  obviously  be  viewed  apart  from 
one  another.   The  former  may  be  a  subject  of  enquiry,  and 
may  be  settled,  and  its  settlement  constitute  the  basis  of 
the   most   important  transaction  ;   whilst  the  latter  may 
be   left  entirely  untouched.     I  am  a  foreigner,  resident 
in  your  country.     I  find  a  body  of  men  met  together  in 
a  certain  building — they  pass  laws,  some  of  them  affect- 
ing my  dearest  interests,  and  extending  over  me  the  fos- 
tering wing  of  their  protection.     It  is  important  for  me 
to  know  whether  these  men  are  really  authorized  to  pass 
such  laws.     Are  they  the  representatives  of  this  nation  ? 
May  I  safely  make  purchases  under  their  act??     Now 
here  is   a  mere  question  of  fact,  and   it  is  plain,  I  may 
obtain   perfect  satisfaction  on  this  point ;   without  at  all 
going  into  the  other  questions,   how  did  those  men  be- 
come  representatives  ?  What  is  the   manner  of  election 
in  each  state?  Were  the  elections  all  fair  and  just?  &c. 
But  we  must  defer  this  for  the  present,  and  proceed  to 
consider  the  position  that 


DOCTRINE  OF  REPRESENTATION.  53 


SECTION  II. 

This  doctrine  of  Representation  is  taught  in  the  laws 
of  nature,  and  is  essential  to  man's  social  existence 

Let  history  unrol  her  cumbrous  volumes  until  the 
ample  scroll  shall  extend  over  all  time,  and  girdle  the 
globe,  and  I  challenge  the  line,  which  tells  of  a  nation, 
where  the  principle  in  question  has  not  been  recognized  : 
yea,  where  it  does  not  form  a  prominent  feature  of  na- 
tional character.  Take  even  savage  men,  and  is  not  the 
wild  leader  of  the  roving  clan,  as  he  ranges  mountain, 
hill,  and  dale,  at  once  the  lord  and  the  representative  of 
the  train  that  follows  him  1  Is  not  the  tawny  sachem 
the  moral  head  of  his  tribe  ?  Do  they  not  look  to  him, 
to  act  for  them  ? — To  make  peace  or  proclaim  war  ?  And 
in  what  does  civilization  consist?  What  constitutes  the 
secret  of  its  meliorating  influence  ?  Does  it  reveal  the 
principle  of  representation  ?  or  does  it  only  correct  the 
manner  of  constituting  the  relation  of  representer  and 
represented  ?  Look  at  the  condition  of  civilized  nations, 
in  connexion  with  barbarous  nations  ;  and  where  do  you 
find  the  point  of  contrast  in  their  social  system  ?  Not  in 
the  absence  of  representation  from  the  one,  and  its  pres- 
ence in  the  other  ;  but  in  the  manner  in  which  their 
leaders  came  to  possess  representative  power.  Just  as 
nalions  approximate  perfection  in  civilization  and  mo- 
rality, and  consequently,  freedom  ;  do  they  look  well  to 
the  manner  in  which  men  come  in  fact  to  represent 
them.  But  the  fact  itself  is  indispensible  to  social  men. 
There  must  be  government,  and  therefore  one  or  a  few 
must  represent,  must  act  in  many  things,  for  the  whole. 
Now,  from  this  inevitable  necessity  we  infer  that  such  is 
the  moral  law  of  man's  creation.  God  so  created  him 
that  he  cannot  exist  in  society,  for  which  he  is  obviously 
adapted,  without  the  exercise  of  the  principle  of  repre- 
sentation. Take  away  this,  and  where  is  government? 
Where  your  constitutions  ?  Where  your  laws  ?  Where 
your  officers  ?  Where  your  social  system  1 

Hence,  we  should  conclude,  without  ever  having  look* 
5* 


54  ADAM  THE  MORAL  HEAD. 

ed  into  it,  that  the  Bible, — supposing  it  to  be  a  book  in- 
tended for  human  good,  must  embrace  and  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  representation.  To  affirm  this  is  the  object  of 
our 

SECTION  III. 

Mam  acted  in  the  Covenant  as  the  representative  of  all 
human  persons :  he  was  the  moral  head  of  the  race. 

For  the  proper  illustration  of  this  position,  a  number 
of  distinct  remarks  are  necessary. 

1.  Persons  only  are  capable  of  being  legally  and  mor- 
ally represented.  This  will  appear  from  a  moment's 
reflection,  upon  the  nature  of  the  thing.  A  representa- 
tive is  one  who  stands  in  the  legal  relations  of  another, 
and  acts  for  him  ;  so  that  the  act  of  the  one  becomes 
binding  in  law  and  morality  upon  the  other.  Now  who 
can  conceive  of  a  moral  obligation,  lying  upon  any  but  a 
moral  being  ?  I  am  aware,  however,  that  by  a  fiction  of 
the  law  or  a  figure  of  rhetoric,  we  speak  of  representing 
property  :  and  so  we  speak  of  property  being  bound. 
But  no  person  supposes  that  a  moral  obligation  can  lie 
upon  an  inanimate  substance,  or  that  it  is  capable  of 
acting  through  a  vicarious  substitute.  All  men  know, 
that  when  we  speak  of  representing  property,  we  sim- 
ply mean,  the  giving  to  those  who  hold  it  of  an  influence 
in  appointing  the  representative  greater  than  their  due 
proportion,  if  numerically  considered  :  and  when  prop- 
erty is  said  to  be  bound,  it  is  simply  meant,  that  the  right 
to  it  has  passed  over,  under  certain  conditions  to  a  per- 
son different  from  the  formal  or  reputed  owner. 

Neither  can  a  nature  be  represented.  Nature  is  the 
aggregate  of  properties  belonging  to  any  person  or  thing. 
When  the  apostle  speaks  of  men  being  "  partakers  of  the 
divine  nature, H  he  merely  teaches  the  doctrine  of  sanc- 
tification ;  that  they  are  accommodated  to  the  moral 
likeness  of  God ;  made  in  a  measure  holy — have  in  a 
higher  degree  than  before,  some  of  the  properties  whose 
aggregate,  in  perfection,  constitute  our  idea  of  God. 

The  notion  we  attach  to  the  term  nature  is  a  mere 


ADAM  THE  MORAL  HEAD.  55 

abstraction — it  exists  only  in  thought :  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  human  nature  apart  from  personal  existence. 
It  is  not  therefore  human  nature  that  Adam  represented 
in  the  covenant  of  works,  but  the  human  persons  who 
possess  it. 

2.  The  extent  of  every  federal  representation  depends 
solely  upon  the  covenant  which  creates  it.  That  is  to 
say,  the  number  of  persons  which  the  representative  acts 
for,  and  the  identical  persons  themselves,  must  be  de- 
termined by  the  covenant  agreement  by  which  he  be- 
comes a  representative.  Consequently,  it  is  the  will 
of  the  parties  to  a  covenant  which  determines  the  ampli- 
tude of  its  range.  Of  this  we  have  abundant  examples 
in  our  federate  system  of  government.  In  some  depart- 
ments, and  for  specified  purposes,  a  single  individual  re- 
presents the  whole  American  people.  In  others,  one 
represents  twenty,  thirty,  forty  thousand.  This  depends 
upon  the  will  of  the  parties  who  enter  into  the  national 
covenant.  There  is  nothing  else  to  limit  and  define  it. 
For  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  the  action  is  the  same, 
whether  one  man,  or  one  million  are  to  be  affected  by 
it.  The  humble  representative  of  the  humblest  free- 
holder in  the  nation,  may  meet  the  authorized  represen- 
tative of  the  whole  nation;  the  two  may  make  a  contract 
for  the  sale  and  purchase,  or  exchange  of  property ; 
which  contract  is  equally  binding  upon  the  nation  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  individual  on  the  other.  Numbers  do 
not  affect  it.  The  same  principle  you  find  in  the  crimi- 
nal code  of  all  civilized  nations.  An  individual  meets 
his  neighbour  and  murders  him  ;  the  law  hangs  him.  A 
dozen  of  individuals  associated  together,  meet  a  man  and 
murder  him — one  murders  him — the  law  hangs  them  all. 
Here  the  thing  done  is  the  same,  but  the  persons  affected 
by  it  are  ae  one  to  twelve. 

The  commerce  of  society  too,  deals  largely  in  this  prin- 
ciple. A  commercial  agent  is  despatched  to  a  distant 
port,  and  negotiates  a  heavy  contract.  Now,  who  are 
to  profit  by  the  speculation  ?  How  many  mercantile 
houses  shall  share  in  the  spoils  of  victory  ?  Why,  simply 
those  whom  the  agent  represented — for  whom  he  acted. 
And  is  not   the  action  the  same,   whether  one  or  one 


56  ADAM  THE  MORAL  HEAD. 

hundred  are  benefitted?  But  now,  on  what  does  the  ex- 
tent of  the  negotiation,  as  to  the  persons  affected  by  it, 
depend  ?  Manifestly,  on  the  fact  of  their  being  represented 
by  the  agent.  Every  man  to  the  whole  extent  in  which 
he  is  so  represented,  must  profit  by  the  adventure  ;  and 
this  is  fixed  and  determined  by  the  compact,  which  cre- 
ated their  agent. 

Thus  also  is  it  in  the  great  and  momentous  concern 
before  us.  There  is  nothing  to  limit  and  bound  the  cov- 
enant of  God  with  Adam — nothing  to  determine  whether 
Adam  only ;  or  Adam  and  Eve  ;  or  Adam,  Eve  and  the 
whole  race,  shall  be  affected  by  it  for  good  or  ill,  as  the 
issue  may  prove,  but  the  will  of  the  parties.  If  God  so 
willed  it,  and  Adam  so  agreed  to  it, — that  he  should  act 
for  all  human  persons — should  represent  the  race;  then 
so  it  was  and  so  its  effects  are,  and  must  be.  The  moral 
body  is  one.  The  head  and  members  go  together  :  their 
destinies  are  the  same.  The  question  before  us,  there- 
fore, is  a  very  simple  one.  It  refers  to  a  mere  matter  of 
historical  fact.     Did  Adam  act  for  all  men  ? 

3.  Let  us  see  to  the  scripture  proofs.  And  as  we  have 
the  history  of  the  world's  creation,  and  its  government 
for  more  than  sixteen  centuries  summed  up  in  the  first 
five  brief  chapters  of  Genesis,  it  would  be  unreasonable 
to  expect  much  detail  concerning  this  covenant:  and  this 
especially,  seeing  it  endured  unbroken  perhaps  not  a  sin- 
gle week,  or  even  day.  Our  proofs  therefore  of  Adam's 
representative  character  must  be  almost  wholly  from 
other  parts  of  scripture. 

1.  The  first  class  of  proofs  shall  be  taken  from  the 
other  covenants  which  God  made  at  different  times  with 
man.     Of  these,  three  may  be  mentioned,  viz  : 

The  covenant  with  Noah,  Genesis  ix.,  which  guaran 
tees  to  mankind,  exemption  from  destruction  by  a  flood 
of  waters,  the  succession  of  seed  time  and  harvest,  and 
the  use  of  animal  food. 

The  covenant  with  Abraham,  by  which  the  visible 
church,  strictly  so  called,  is  constituted;  and  the  pos- 
session of  Canaan  is  pledged,  and  also  a  limiting  of  the 
great  promise  of  Messiah  to  his  descendants. 

The  covenant  with  Israel  at  Sinai,  which  restricts  for 


ADAM  THE  MORAL  HEAD.  57 

a  time,  the  blessings  of  Abraham's  covenant,  to  tiie  na- 
tion of  Israel. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  all  these,  not  the  persons 
immediately  present  alone  are  concerned  ;  but  they  ex- 
tend to  vast  multitudes;  to  generations  yet  unborn.  They, 
therefore,  contain  the  principle,  which  we  contend  pre- 
vails also  in  the  original  covenant  after  which  they  are 
modelled.  Moses  records  it  in  Deut.  xxix.  14,  15. 
"  Neither  with  you  only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and 
this  oath;  but  with  him  that  standeth  here,  with  us  this 
dav,  before  the  Lord  our  God,  and  also  with  him  that  is 
not  here  with  us  this  day."  The  Sinai  Covenant,  and 
all  the  others,  included  generations  of  generations,  who 
were  to  be  affected  by  them,  for  good  or  for  ill.  Thus  a 
presumption  arises,  that  the  Adamic  covenant  was  to  af- 
fect his  posterity.  This  is  strengthened  by  all  his  his- 
tory. "  For  it  was  not  said  to  our  first  parents  only, 
(observes  Witsius  i.  69.)  Increase  and  multiply  ;  by 
virtue  of  which  command  the  human  race  is  still  con- 
tinued :  Nor  is  it  true  of  Adam  only.  "  It  is  not  good 
that  man  should  be  alone:  nor  does  that  conjugal  law 
concern  him  alone,  "  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his 
father  and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined  unto  his  wifey 
and  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh;  which  Christ  still  ur?. 
ges." 

2.  But  we  rest  not  on  presumption,  however  strong. 
We  refer  to  the  facts  of  scripture  :  and  among  these  we 
find  that  the  penal  consequences,  the  melancholy  evils 
of  the  breach  of  the  covenant  by  Adam,  fell  upon  his 
posterity  as  well  as  upon  himself.  We  find  also  that  the 
Bible  refers  all  our  woes  to  Adam's  act  as  their  origin. 
Through  him  as  the  door,  they  all  Hooded  in  upon 
our  wretched  world.  "  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world  and  death  by  sin."  Rom.  v,  12.  Here  is  the 
fact:  and  from  it  we  argue  the  preceding  cause  of  it. 
All  the  race  of  Adam  suffer.  This  is  a  moral  effect  and 
must  have  a  moral  cause.  For,  as  before  hinted,  in  the 
government  of  a  perfectly  holy  being,  the  suffering  of 
holy  being-s  unconnected  with  sin,  is  an  impossibility. 
The  human  mind  is  so  constructed,  that  it  cannot  believe 
God  would  impose  pain  and  anguish,  where  there  is  no 


58  ADAM  THE  MORAL  HEAD. 

sin.  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?" 
If  therefore,  death  came  upon  all  men  by  the  act  of  the 
first  man,  it  is  undeniable  that  his  act  stands  in  the  rela- 
tion of  a  moral  cause  to  the  universal  fact.  But  now  it 
is  impossible  that  Adam's  sin  could  be  the  cause  of 
death  passing  upon  all  men,  unless  all  men  were  morally 
connected  with  him.  If  he  did  not  act  for  them — if  he 
did  not  represent  them,  they  could  not  justly  be  exposed 
to  suffering  and  delivered  over  to  death,  on  account  of 
his  sin.  The  moral  sense  of  all  men  revolts  at  such  an 
idea.  What !  shall  men  suffer  who  have  not  sinned  ! 
Shall  God  be  charged  with  inflicting  pain  and  even 
death,  where  there  is  no  transgression  !  !  Who  is  this 
that  sits  in  judgment  and  condemns  the  Governor  of  the 
universe  !  !  ! 

3.  But  passing  all  that  remains  of  the  context,  Rom. 
v,  12 — 20,  whose  strength  we  will  have  occasion  to 
bring  out  hereafter;  let  us  advert  to  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22. 
"  Since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  re- 
surrection of  the  dead  :  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even 
so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  This  text  relates 
to  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  only  affects  our  ar- 
gument, by  confirming  the  same  point  as  the  passage 
from  Romans  ;  whilst  it  contrasts  Adam  and  Christ,  and 
shuts  us  up  to  the  necessity  of  either  rejecting  the  cove- 
nant representative  character  of  Christ,  or  of  admitting 
the  covenant  representative  character  of  Adam.  If  Adam 
is  not  a  public  moral  head,  neither  is  Christ.  If  the  lat- 
ter be,  the  former  must  have  been. 

4.  A  similar  contrast  is  found  in  the  47th  verse  of  the 
same  chapter,  "  The  first  man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy, 
the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven."  Now, 
wherefore  this  bringing  together  of  Adam  and  Christ  ? 
It  cannot  be  because  of  any  personal  qualities,  either  of 
resemblance  or  of  disparity.  For  in  Adam  there  is  no- 
thing peculiar,  that  he  should  be  thus  compared  and 
contrasted.  Nay,  but  the  point  of  similarity  is  in  their 
official  relations.  Both  are  heads,  moral  heads  of  dis- 
tinct moral  bodies  of  men,  whose  destinies  are  connect- 
ed in  law  with  their  conduct  respectively.  Hence  in 
Romans,  v.  14,  he  is  called  "  the  figure — the  type  of 


ADAM  THE  MORAL  HEAD.  59 

him  that  was  to  come,"  that  is  of  Christ.  Adam  was 
the  type  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  anti-type  to  him. 
In  their  legal  relations,  they  were  like  to  one  another. 
As  in  the  Printer's  art,  the  letter  is  the  exact  resem- 
blance of  the  type  ;  so  the  representative  character  of 
the  Redeemer  is  exactly  like  the  representative  charac- 
ter of  Adam. 

From  this  branch  of  the  subject,  there  arises  a  ques- 
tion or  two,  more  curious  perhaps  than  useful,  to  which 
however,  a  moment's  attention  may  be  given.  What 
position  did  Eve  occupy  ?  Was  she  an  original  coven- 
anting party  ?  Or  was  she  represented  by  Adam? 

Doctor  Ridgely,  who  briefly  but  candidly  states  the 
arguments  in  favour  of  the  man  alone  being  the  cove- 
nant head,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  woman,  yet  gives  his 
own  opinion  in  opposition  to  it.  It  appears  to  me  his 
objections  are  not  valid,  and  that  Eve  was  not  a  repre- 
sentative, but  was  represented  in  Adam.     Because, 

When  God  gave  Adam  the  covenant,  as  formerly  re- 
marked, Eve  was  not  created.  It  is  true,  that  the  term 
Adam,  means  the  race:  it  is  a  generic  term,  as  well  as  a 
proper  name  :  and  that  in  Genesis  n.  27,  28,  it  is  said 
— "  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him  ;  male  and  fe- 
male created  he  them.  And  God  blessed  them,  and 
God  said  unto  them,  be  fruitful  and  multiply,"  &c;  and 
that  the  covenant  is  not  mentioned  until  the  16th  verse 
of  the  li.  chapter.  But  it  is  also  true  that  the  n.  chapter 
from  verse  4,  is  an  account  more  in  detail  of  what  is 
contained  in  general  in  the  first.  In  verses  4 — 7,  he 
gives  an  account  of  the  creation,  especially  of  the  vege- 
table, its  want  of  cultivation,  and  of  man.  In  verses  8 
— 17,  the  planting  of  the  garden  is  described,  the  tree 
of  life  and  of  knowledge,  the  rivers,  the  putting  of  Adam 
into  the  garden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it,  and  the  com- 
mand relative  to  the  forbidden  fruit.  Then  follows  a 
notice  of  his  loneliness,  his  need  of  a  social  companion, 
his  inspecting  the  animals,  and  naming  them,  but  find- 
ing no  suitable  help;  and  then  the  creation  of  the  woman 
to  supply  this  deficiency.  It  is  manifest  the  woman  was 
not  created  until  after  the  covenant  was  given.  "Adam 
was  first  formed,  then  Eve."  Surely  Paul  did  not  mean 


60  ADAM  THE  MORAL  HEAD. 

by  Adam,  here,  to  include  Eve  !  Therefore  Eve  was 
not  created  when  Adam  was,  but  after  the  command  re- 
lative to  the  forbidden  fruit  was  delivered  ;  and  conse- 
quently was  not  a  party  to  the  covenant. 

2.  But  if,  because  the  word  Adam  sometimes  means 
man  in  general,  it  is  right  to  infer  that  Eve,  who  was 
taken  out  of  Adam,  was  really  a  party  to  the  covenant, 
which  Ridgley  seems  to  account  the  chief  reason  for  his 
opinion — the  same  is  true  of  Cain  and  Seth,  &c,  and 
they  were  parties  also.  I  see  no  reason  in  the  pecu- 
liarity of  manner  in  her  extraction,  why  she  should  be 
accounted  a  party,  more  than  Abel  or  Cain.  In  truth, 
as  I  hope  to  show,  the  physical  or  material  connexion 
has  nothing  at  all  to  do  in  the  matter — forms  no  moral 
connexion  whatever. 

Besides,  this  argument  from  the  generic  sense  of  the 
word  man,  would  include  Christ,  for  he  is  called  the 
second  man.  "  The  first  man  is  of  the  earth — the  se- 
cond man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven."  Now  if  man  in 
the  former  case  is  generic  and  includes  Eve,  by  what 
rule  of  criticism  can  it  be  restricted  in  the  latter  ?  I  there- 
fore think  that  when  the  apostle  says,  "By  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world"  :  he  does  not  mean —  'by  one 
man  and  one  woman  !' 

But  moreover  if  Eve  was  a  party  like  Adam,  there 
must  have  been  three  parties  to  the  covenant,  or  then 
Adam  and  Eve  must  have  been,  before  its  formation,  a 
moral  unity  ;  which,  that  they  were  for  any  other  pur- 
poses than  those  included  in  the  marriage  covenant,  I 
think  there  is  no  evidence. 

4.  The  truth  appears  to  be,  that  God  gave  this  cove- 
nant to  the  person,  Adam — as  indeed  how  could  human 
nature,  a  mere  abstraction  enter  into  a  covenant  ?  not 
however  as  an  individual  person  only,  but  also  as  a  re- 
presentative of  all  other  human  persons.  The  individual 
Adam  and  the  representative  person,  Adam,  was  to 
stand  or  fall  for  himself  and  for  his  representative  body. 

But  in  this  body  representative,  Eve  was  included, 
yet  only  until  she  should  have  a  personal  existence  and 
capacity  to  assume  for  herself,  her  covenant  liabilities. 


RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY.       61 

Then  she  was  under  the  covenant  for  herself  only. 
Had  she  sinned  and  Adam  retained  his  integrity,  she 
would  have  perished  and  Adam  and  his  representative 
body  would  have  remained  uninjured.  Had  Adam 
failed  and  Eve  maintained  her  integrity,  Eve  would 
have  survived  the  wreck  of  the  race.  When  she  sinned, 
she  alone  fell,  the  covenant  was  not  broken  until  Adam, 
the  federal  head,  had  transgressed ;  then  only  "  earth 
felt  the  wound," 

"And  nature,  sighing  through  all  her  works, 
Gave  signs  of  woe,  that  all  was  lost." 


SECTION  VI. 

The  mode  of  constituting  the  Representative  Relation. 

Official  stations  may  be  occupied  by  men  whose  la- 
bours may  be  useful  to  the  public  and  honorable  to  them- 
selves, and  yet  in  whose  appointment  there  may  have  been 
some  irregularity.  Paul  himself  was  not  called  to  the  apos- 
tleship  in  the  same  way  as  were  the  other  apostles.  If 
therefore  the  question  be  raised,  about  the  mode  of  consti- 
tuting the  relations  official  and  moral  of  any  individual,  we 
shall  find  that  great  diversity  exist,  whilst  the  reality  of  the 
thing  is  acknowledged.  The  social  and  moral  system  of 
even  our  country  is  susceptible  of  considerable  variety. 
In  our  own  State,  for  example,  the  Governor,  who  re- 
presents the  whole  commonwealth,  is  appointed  by  the 
bare  plurality  of  qualified  voters  who  may  and  shall 
choose  to  vote,  though  that  plurality  may  be  a  minority 
of  all  the  votes  polled,  and  may  not  be  one-twentietn 
part  of  the  entire  population.  And  yet  no  man  who  did 
not  attend  the  election — no  woman  or  minor  or  foreigner, 
or  other  disqualified  person,  thinks  of  challenging  the 
Governor's  authority,  because  he  or  she  did  not  vote  ;  or 
because  he  was  not  permitted  so  to  do.  In  the  state  of 
New  Jersey,  the  Governor  is  elected  by  the  Legislature. 
The  President  of  the  United  States  is  appointed  in  still 
a  different  manner.  And  thus  it  is  in  almost  all  depart- 
6 


62      RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY. 

ments  of  our  political  system.  Different  modes  of  crc 
ating  the  representative  relation  exist :  different  qualifi- 
cations for  office  and  for  elector  exist :  but  in  all,  women 
are  excluded.  The  conditions  also,  of  the  term  of  office, 
both  as  to  duration  and  extent  of  honour,  are  infinitely 
diversified.  In  some  it  is  for  a  single  year,  or  even  less  ; 
in  others  for  a  term  of  years  ;  in  others  for  life. 

Now,  the  point  to  which  your  special  attention  is  in- 
vited, is  this,  viz  :  that  no  diversity  as  to  the  manner  of 
constituting  the  relations  of  representer  and  represented, 
destroys  or  invalidates  the  acts  of  the  representative.  A 
notable  instance  of  this  has  recently  occupied  the  world's 
attention  and  received  its  sanction.  The  late  French  in- 
demnity, the  refusal  to  pay  which,  had  well  nigh  lighted 
up  the  torch  of  a  bloody  war,  was  for  acts  of  violence  to 
American  property,  under  the  reign  of  Napoleon.  In 
pressing  our  claims,  it  was  alledged,  that  the  imperial 
government,  however  irregularly  constituted,  was  in  fact 
the  representative  of  the  French  nation,  and  therefore, 
that  nation  was  bound  to  pay  for  all  its  spoliations  on 
American  property.  The  voice  of  reason  and  the  force 
of  truth,  more  resistless  than  the  swords  of  Napoleon 
and  Wellington  both,  prevailed.  The  French  govern- 
ment and  people,  and  the  world  confessed,  that  even 
great  irregularity  in  constituting  the  representative,  did 
not  nullify  his  acts. 

With  these  views  before  us,  we  may  meet  the  ques- 
tion of  mode,  as  to  Adam's  becoming  the  representative 
of  the  race.  And  we  see,  1,  at  once,  it  was  not  by  a 
popular  election,  wherein  a  bare  plurality  of  votes  de- 
cides the  question.  When  this  arrangement  was  entered 
into,  there  was  no  man  upon  earth  but  Adam  ;  there 
could  be  no  such  election. 

2,  Yet  no  doubt,  had  God  withholden  this  covenant 
until  the  race  had  been  developed,  so  that  the  globe 
should  have  been  covered  with  the  sons  and  daughters  of 
Adam,  all  living  in  perfect  holiness  and  harmony  and 
love  :  and  had  God  then  made  proclamation  to  the  race 
and  proposed  to  grant  them  confirmation  in  eternal  feli- 
city upon  the  simple  condition,  that  one  of  their  number 
should  stand  such  a  trial   as  he  would   prescribe ;  and 


RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY.  63 

had  there  been  a  general  election  and  every  son  and 
daughter  of  Adam  been  called  on  for  his  vote,  the  vener- 
able Father  of  the  whole,  would  have  been  unanimously 
chosen.  Without  one  dissenting  voice,  no  doubt,  the 
exclamation  would  have  been.  Who  so  fit  for  such 
a  trial  and  to  secure  such  glorious  results  as  the  Fa- 
ther of  us  all?  But  not  thus  did  God  proceed:  he 
chose  himself,  the  representative  of  the  race ;  and  what 
would  have  been  wisdom  in  holy  men,  cannot  be  folly 
with  God. 

3,  Hence  we  see,  the  unreasonableness  of  objecting 
to  the  doctrine  of  Adam's  representative  character,  be- 
cause we  had  no  voice  in  his  appointment.  If  I  am  not 
mistaken  this  is  one  of  the  most  serious  objection  to  the 
whole  doctrine.  We  feel  it  to  be  hard,  men  say,  that  a 
man  should  act  for  us  before  we  were  born,  and  that  for 
his  acts  we  should  be  exposed  to  suffering  and  death, 
when  it  was  impossible,  and  accordingly,  we  did  not  ap- 
point him,  and  gave  no  expression  of  consent  to  his  deed. 
To  which  objection  we  present  three  distinct  replies ; 
1.  Had  you  been  present  and  been  called  on  for  your 
vote,  you  would  undoubtedly  have  appointed  Adam  to 
act  for  you  ;  your  objecting  now,  is  therefore  unreason- 
able, and  is  a  result  of  your  sinfulness.  2.  God  knows 
better  what  is  good  for  man  than  he  does  himself.  He 
lacked  neither  wisdom  nor  goodness  to  direct  his  choice 
of  a  representative  to  stand  or  fall  for  the  race.  3.  Your 
not  having  an  actual  and  personal  choice  in  appointing 
Adam  as  your  representative,  is  no  valid  objection  to 
that  doctrine,  and  that  it  is  not,  is  evident  from  the  gen- 
eral practices  of  the  freest  people  on  earth.  Do  not  the 
laws  of  our  country  bind  all  our  citizens,  whether  they 
have  voted  for  the  representatives  or  not  ?  Are  not  all 
minors,  and  all  women,  cut  off  from  the  elective  fran- 
chise ?  And  do  not  they  feel  the  binding  obligations  of 
our  laws  ?  If  arraigned  for  any  offence,  can  they  plead 
in  bar,  that  they  never  gave  their  consent  to  them — they 
had  no  voice  in  choosing  the  representatives  who  enact- 
ed them  ?  Clearly,  there  exists  no  government,  however 
democratic,  wherein,  every  individual's  personal  assent  is 
essential  to  the  existence  of  the  representative  relation 


64  RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY. 

and  to  the  authority  of  the  law.  On  the  contrary,  the 
most  determined  opposition  to  the  law  and  the  man  who 
made  it,  does  not  free  men  from  its  obligation.  Suppose 
the  Pennsylvania  internal  improvement  debt  to  remain 
unliquidated,  for  a  hundred  years  to  come  ;  and  the  stock 
wholly,  as  now  in  the  hands  of  foreigners  ;  could  the 
generation  that  will  then  be,  object  to  its  payment,  on 
the  grounds  that  their  fathers  were  opposed  to  it,  or  that 
they  themselves  never  voted  for  the  men  who  contracted 
this  debt?  If  you  may  not  be  justly  bound  by  the  act  of 
Adam,  because  you  did  not  appoint  him  to  act  for  you, 
how  can  you  be  bound  by  the  act  of  the  men  who  con- 
tracted this  debt  ?  How  can  you  be  bound  by  the  act  of 
the  men  who  signed  a  treaty  a  hundred  years  before 
you  were  born  ?  Thus  you  see  the  principle  which  sub- 
verts the  covenant  of  works,  subverts  also,  the  entire 
commercial  and  political  foundations  of  human  society. 
But  let  us  not  be  understood  in  these  replies,  to  rest 
the  cause  on  their  efficiency.  By  no  means.  It  rests 
on  the  broad  foundation  of  God's  truth.  He  chose  Adam 
to  represent  his  whole  race,  and  Adam  wisely  acqui- 
esced in  the  choice  :  nor  did  opposition  to  his  election 
ever  occur  until  sin  produced  it.  Had  Adam  stood  and 
all  the  race  been  at  this  moment  basking  in  the  sunshine 
of  heaven's  love,  not  a  tongue  had  till  this  hour  moved; 
not  a  voice  had  been  lifted  in  opposition. 

SECTION  V. 

The  moral  relation  of  Jidam  to  his  posterity,  viz :  as 
head  of  the  covenant,  is  principal;  and  his  physi- 
cal relation,  viz :  as  natural  progenitor,  is  sub- 
servient thereto  ;  and  not  vice  versa. 

If  I  am  not  much  mistaken,  a  frequent  mode  of  speech 
on  this  subjet,  conveys  the  idea,  that  the  moral  relation 
of  Adam's  posterity  to  him  is  dependent  on  the  physical 
connexion  by  natural  generation.  There  was  a  seminal 
inhering  of  all  men  in  Adam ;  as  the  future  oak  is 
wrapped  up  in  the  acorn  ;  and  this  acorn,  with  its  con- 
tained miniature  tree,  and  all  the  other  acorns  produced 


RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY.  65 

from  the  same  oak,  were  seminally  in  the  acorn  from 
which  that  oak  sprang ;  and  thus,  all  trees  were  seminal- 
ly in  the  first  acorn.  So  with  Adam.  Hence  we  hear 
of  all  human  beings,  as  merely  "  Adam  developed,"  un- 
rolled as  it  were.  Now  to  this  theory,  in  itself  consid- 
ered, it  is  not  necessary  here  to  raise  objections.  Its  ap- 
plication in  morals,  is  that  to  which  I  object.  It  is  sup- 
posed that  this  seminal  or  germanic  unity,  accounts  for 
the  moral  relations  of  the  covenant  of  works  and  the 
doctrine  of  representation.  All  men  were  present  in 
Adam,  and  hence  can  be  held  responsible  for  his  acts. 
To  this  it  may  be  answered,  that  it  would  require  the 
theory  to  run  a  little  farther,  viz :  that  all  souls  of  men 
were  in  Adam's  body —  a  dream  of  the  theorising  fra- 
ternity which  has  had  its  day,  and  like  the  baseless  fa- 
bric of  other  visions  has  passed  off.  So  far,  however, 
from  explaining  representation,  this  theory  destroys  the 
doctrine  altogether.  For  if  all  souls  were  in  Adam  and 
acted  in  him,  then  there  eould  be  no  federal  representa- 
tion ;  because  each  man  being  present,  there  was  no 
room  for  another  to  act  for  him,  he  acted  for  himself. 
Hence  it  is  obvious,  that  the  theory  of  all  souls  and  that 
of  all  bodies,  and  that  of  both  souls  and  bodies,  being 
present  in  Adam,  are  as  inefficient  towards  accounting 
for  the  sin  and  misery  of  his  race,  as  they  are  visionary, 
and  without  foundation  in  themselves. 

In  opposition  to  these,  I  maintain,  that  the  moral  con- 
nexion with  Adam  is  the  principal,  both  in  the  order  of 
importance  and  of  nature — that  God  first  determined  to 
create  rational  souls,  who  should  be  for  a  time  connected 
with  bodies  material — should  then  be  tried,  and  being 
left  unrestrained  by  divine  power,  should  fall — that  they 
should  be  put  under  a  remedial  law,  and  a  part  of  them 
be  recovered  to  a  state  of  holy  and  gracious  acceptance 
with  Him,  and  taken  from  the  body  to  heaven,  and  sub- 
sequently the  body  should  be  raised,  and  the  entire  re- 
deemed persons,  be  made  the  instruments  of  reflecting 
the  glory  of  God's  mercy  forever — that  this  last,  is  the 
main  design  of  the  creation  of  our  world,  and  peopling 
it  with  life,  vegetable,  animal  and  rational.  Now,  I  be- 
lieve that  the  soul  and  its  relations  are  paramount — -the 
6* 


66  RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY. 

moral  connexion  of  all  men  with  Adam  is  the  prin- 
cipal, and  the  mere  physical  and  animal  connexion  is  an 
incidental  circumstance — no  more  than  the  incidental 
matter  of  scaffolding  to  the  building.  The  building  rests 
on  its  own  foundation,  and  the  scaffolding  is  necessary 
in  its  place.  God's  moral  creation,  and  the  great  moral 
constitution,  viz  :  the  covenant  of  works  is  the  building, 
whose  entire  body  consists  of  all  human  persons.  These 
human  persons  are  the  component  parts  of  the  structure, 
and  the  great  builder  sees  proper  to  bring  each  to  its  po- 
sition by  the  material  mechanism  according  to  whose 
laws  the  human  race  exists.  Hence,  1  infer,  that  to 
make  the  natural  connexion  with  Adam,  the  basis  of 
the  moral,  is  to  found  the  building  upon  the  scaffolding 
—to  make  the  mere  physical  connexion  the  reason  of 
the  representative  relation,  is  to  interchange  the  cause 
and  effect.  A  few  distinct  remarks  seem  necessary  to 
illustrate  my  meaning. 

1.  The  soul  or  spirit  is  of  more  importance  than  the 
body.  The  redemption  of  the  soul  is  precious,  and  its 
value  is  seen  in  the  ransom  that  is  paid  for  it.  Ye  are 
not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  such  as  silver  and 
gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ. — The  infi- 
nite price  bespeaks  the  estimate  of  the  soul,  in  the  mind 
of  him  who  paid  it.  What  is  a  man  profited,  if  he 
shall  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  It  is 
entirely  superfluous  to  occupy  time  in  proof  of  this  re- 
mark. Its  truth  is  readily  conceded  by  all  who  feel  that 
they  have  souls  to  be  saved  or  lost.  How  far  a  correct 
belief  prevails  in  practice  is  another  thing ;  but  in  the 
theory,  all  except  atheists  and  materialists  agree.  The 
spirit  is  valuable  above  the  flesh. 

2.  The  soul  will  exist,  in  a  state  of  blessedness  or 
of  misery,  apart  from  the  body.  "  This  day  thou  shalt 
be  with  me  in  paradise."  It  is  therefore  not  dependent 
on  the  body  either  for  its  existence  or  for  the  conscious- 
ness of  that  existence.  Its  moral  relations  therefore  do 
dot  depend  absolutely  and  necessarily  upon  its  material 
connexions.  Those  exist  after  these  have  ceased.  The 
soul  apart  from  the  body  stands  in  the  same  relation  to 
Adam  and  to  Christ,  as  when  connected  with  it.     Why 


RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY.  67 

then  should  it  be  supposed  that  the  moral  connexion 
with  Adam  is  dependent  upon  and  results  from  the  na- 
tural ?  Why  not  rather  believe  that  the  natural  relation  re- 
sults from  and  is  dependent  upon  the  moral  1 — That  the 
body  is  produced,  and  lives  and  dies  and  will  revive  again 
merely  to  subserve  the  interests  of  the  soul  ? 

3.  The  principle  of  these  remarks  is  applicable  to  the 
whole  material  fabric  of  the  world. 

All  things  are  yours — the  whole  structure  is  adapted 
to  the  developement  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  powers 
of  man,  and  for  this  end  are  they  put  under  his  govern- 
ment. He  is  Lord  of  all  below,  that  by  a  right  use  of 
them  he  may  expand  the  powers  of  his  immortal  part, 
and  fit  it  for  its  permanent  state  of  residence.  True,  the 
material  universe  contains  much  beauty  and  order  ;  many 
manifestations  of  the  divine  power  and  wisdom,  and  may 
be  said  to  have  had  this  in  view.  But  the  powers  of 
mind  and  heart  which  can  discover  these  beauties,  and 
kindle  to  devotion,  belong  to  the  soul  only,  and  make 
their  approaches  to  perfection  by  the  legitimate  use  of 
all  things  placed  within  our  view.  "  The  heavens  de- 
clare the  glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his 
handy  work,"  but  to  whom  ?  to  mere  animal  nature  ! 
It  is  manifest  that  the  soul  only  is  capable  of  perceiving 
their  beauties  :  and  if  so,  they  were  surely  created  for  its 
advantage. 

Thus,  from  the  analogies  of  the  case,  we  conclude, 
that  all  material  things,  animate  and  inanimate,  are  sub- 
servient, and  ought  to  be  subservient  to  the  interests  of 
the  soul.  In  very  deed,  the  grand  purpose  for  which 
this  world  exists,  is  to  display  the  glory  of  God's  mer- 
cy. The  Bible  represents  God  as  having  purposed,  be- 
fore creation,  such  a  display.  Speaking  of  God's  be- 
lieving people,  the  great  Apostle  informs  us  that  God 
the  Father  gave  them  a  high  character  among  the  heav- 
enly inhabitants,  and  that,  before  the  creation  of  the 
world. — "Who  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  bless- 
ings in  heavenly  places,  [among  the  heavenly  inhabi- 
tants.] According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world."     This  eternal  purpose  or 


68  RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY. 

decree,  in  the  order  of  nature,  is  anterior  to  its  execu- 
tion ;  and  between  the  purpose  and  its  fulfilment,  in  the 
actual  sanctiiication   of  his  people,  lie  the  creation  and 
adjustment  of  the  whole  material  system,  including  the 
bodies  of  all  men.     All  this   must  be  a  means  towards 
the  accomplishment  of  he  grand   end.     Other  worlds 
display  the  wisdom,  power  and   goodness  of  God,  and 
these  less  or  more  shine  forth  from  the  ball  we  inhabit. 
But  mercy — boundless  benevolence  toward  sinful  crea- 
tures— this  attribute  was  unknown,  for  aught  we  know, 
in  all  creation.     To  reveal  this,  this  world  was  spoken 
into  existence — man  was    created — the    covenant  was 
made  with  him — he  was   permitted  to  fall — the  gospel 
was  preached  to  him — and  the   entire  system  of  divine 
truth  and  ordinances  was  established.     No  man,  I  appre- 
hend, has  or  can  have  just  and  adequate  conceptions  of 
the  condescension  and  benevolence  of  God,  and  of  the 
scheme  of  his  providence  and  grace,  who  does  not  trans- 
port himself  in  imagination   away  back  beyond  the  pe- 
riod of  the  world's  creation,  and  there  contemplate  the 
councils  of  infinite  wisdom  planning  the  whole.  In  such 
exercises  was  the  enraptured  prophet  engaged  when  he 
exclaimed  "O   Lord,  thou    art  my  God;    I  will  exalt 
thee,  I  will  praise  thy  name :  for  thou  hast  done  won- 
derful things  ;  thy  councils  of  old  are  faithfulness  and 
truth."     Isa.  xxv.  1.     And  when  he  introduces  God  as 
exhibiting  the  same  views.     "lam  God  and  there  is 
none  like  me  ;  declaring  the   end  from   the  beginning, 
and  from  ancient  times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done, 
saying,  my  council  shall   stand,  and  I  will  do   all  my 
pleasure."     Isa.   xlvi.  9,  10.     And  again,    "lam  the 
first,  and  I  am  the  last,  and  besides  me  there  is  no  God; 
and  who,  as  I,  shall  call,  and  shall  declare  it,  and  set  it 
in  order  for  me,  since  I  appointed  the  ancient  people  ? 
And  the  things  that  are  coming  and  shall  come,  let  them 
shew  unto  me."     Isa.  xlv.  6,  7.     Thus  transported  be- 
yond the  period  when  time  began  and  motion  first  mea- 
sured  it,  you  behold  the  councils  of  infinite    wisdom, 
devising  the  glorious  scheme   for  the  display  of  mercy, 
and  selecting  its  objects,  "  according  as  He  hath  chosen 
us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world," — you 


RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY.  69 

hear  Jesus,  in  that  blessed  council,  offering  himself, 
"  Lo  I  come — to  do  thy  will  O  God,  I  take  delight ;" 
you  see  his  appointment  by  the  Father ;  you  hear  the 
eternal  word  pronounced,  and  see  the  world  of  matter 
spring  into  being,  as  the  instrument  and  means  of  dis- 
playing mercy;  as  the  theatre  on  which  is  to  be  acted 
the  splendid  drama,  whose  middle  scene  you  witness  on 
Calvary,  and  whose  closing  act  you  will  witness,  when 
in  the  light  of  this  flaming  globe,  you  shall  behold  the 
judgment  set,  and  the  books  opened.  You  see  the  mor- 
tal, and  yet  immortal  race  of  man,  "  midway  from  no- 
thing to  the  Deity,"  "a  worm,  a  God," — waking  into 
life  under  the  breathing  of  the  spirit,  pressing  onward 
in  a  long  succession  of  ages  towards  his  destined  abode. 
You  see  his  living  spirit — a  being  entirely  distinct,  like 
Adam,  from  the  fleshy  tabernacles,  connected  for  a  time 
with  its  earthly  house  and  then  pass  onward  toward  the 
divine  throne.  For  the  accomplishment  of  this  glorious 
display — for  gathering  in  the  hosts  of  God's  people 
over  all  the  world,  you  see  nations  rise  and  fall ;  conti- 
nents and  islands  discovered  and  peopled  and  Christian- 
ized ;  peace  and  war ;  agriculture  and  commerce ;  lit- 
erature and  science  ;  arts  and  manufactures  ;  the  entire 
frame  of  human  society  and  all  its  complicated  machine- 
ry running  their  perpetual  round.  All — all  these  are  to 
terminate  ;  they  are  all  to  work  in  the  hands  of  God 
our  Redeemer,  to  the  one  grand  and  glorious  end — the 
display  of  divine  mercy,  to  the  admiration  of  the  intelli- 
gent universe. 

Now  with  such  views,  is  it  possible  for  a  man  to 
cherish  the  belief,  that  any  real  or  supposed  natural, 
physical,  material  identity  or  oneness  with  Adam,  can 
account  for  our  being  affected  for  good  or  ill,  by  his  first 
act  ?  Is  it  credible,  even  supposing  the  ineffable  absur- 
dity, that  there  is  a  certain  germ  or  particle  of  matter  in 
my  body  that  was  in  Adam's  body  when  he  sinned — 
suppose  this  absurdity  to  be  true,  is  it  credible  that  this 
is  the  reason  why  I  am  morally  accountable  for  his 
acts  ! 

Take  the  doctrine  of  the  infinite  divisibility  of  matter, 
and  let  Adam  be  so  divided  as  to  give  a  particle  of  his 


70  RELATIONS  OF  ADAM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY. 

material  essence  to  every  one  of  his  descendants  to  the 
end  of  time,  can  any  man  found  his  belief  of  the  moral  re- 
lations upon  the  physical  connexion!?  Is  it  the  physical 
unity  between  a  man  and  his  children,  that  makes  him 
in  a  certain  respect,  their  representative  ?  Can  there  be 
pointed  out  a  single  case,  in  all  the  moral  arrangements 
of  human  society,  in  which  such  unity  is  the  basis  of 
representation  ?  Who  believes  that  his  representative  in 
Congress,  in  the  state  Legislature,  in  all  the  departments 
of  government,  in  church  and  state,  is  such  because  of  a 
material  unity  ! 

But  I  forbear.  The  absurdity  sickness  our  imagina- 
tion, and  reason  flouts  it.  And  yet  notwithstanding, 
grave  theologians  have  spoken  of  the  physical  or  mate- 
rial connexion  with  Adam,  as  constituting  the  basis  of 
our  moral  relations  ;  and  attempts  are  made  to  fasten 
this  absurdity  upon  no  less  a  man  than  President  Ed- 
wards.— This  attempt  you  may  see  refuted  in  "  The 
Vindication"  which  I  published  some  time  since,  on 
pages  80  and  81,  where  the  references  to  Edwards,  will 
direct  you  to  the  parts  of  his  work  which  bear  on  the 
subject.  You  will  see  that  the  identity  which  he  main- 
tained, to  use  his  very  words,  is  "  in  relation  to  the  co- 
venant"— "  there  being  a  constituted  oneness  or  iden- 
ty" — "that  God,  in  his  institution  with  Adam,  dealt 
with  him  as  a  public  person — as  the  head^of  his  spe- 
cies"—" as  the  moral  head  of  his  posterity."  These 
italics  are  Edward's  own,  and  unquestionably  they,  and 
the  phrase  "  moral  head,"  were  designed  to  point  out  a 
covenant,  a  federal,  or  a  moral  headship,  in  contradis- 
tinction from  the  natural  headship  or  physical  connex- 
ion as  the  parent  of  their  mere  animal  nature. 

In  conclusion,  to  sum  up  and  apply;  we  see,  that  the 
general  doctine  of  representation  is  indescribably  simple; 
that  it  involves,  or  rather  is  founded  on  the  doctrine  of 
a  moral  unity  between  distinct  persons;  that  this  is  a  sim- 
ple and  original  element  in  morals  ;  that  it  is  contained 
in  the  essential  law  of  human  nature,  and  in  the  Bible; 
that  human  society  of  no  description  could  exist  with- 
out it ;  that,  especially,  does  it  pervade  all  departments 
of  our  free  institutions,  and  is  essential  to  their  freedom; 


RELATIONS  dF  A&AM  TO  HIS  POSTERITY.  71 

that  Adam  was  in  fact,  the  moral  head  of  his  posterity, 
representing  them,  and  acting  for  them;  that  this  moral 
headship  was  created  by  a  divinely  instituted  covenant? 
in  concurrence  with  human  volition  ;  that  this  federal 
representative  relationship  of  Adam  to  all  human  per- 
sons is  the  principal,  and  his  physical  or  natural  head- 
ship is  subservient  thereto  ;  that  indeed  our  whole  ma- 
terial world,  including  the  bodies  of  all  men,  exists  in 
subserviency  to  our  moral  world,  which  was  brought 
into  being  for  the  grand  and  glorious  purpose  of  holding 
up  the  illustrious  attribute  of  Divine  mercy,  to  the  won- 
dering gaze  of  the  intelligent  universe. 

We  close  the  chapter,  with  two  reflections. 

1.  The  great  principles  of  religion,  morals,  and  poli- 
tics, are  not  diverse  but  identical.  In  God's  covenant 
with  Adam,  commonly  called  "  the  covenant  of  works," 
are  contained  and  taught,  the  great  substance  of  all  poli- 
tics, morals  and  religion,  so  far  as  natural  religion — or 
the  religion  of  man's  primitive  state  is  concerned. — And 
we  shall  see  hereafter,  if  God  will,  that  the  covenant  of 
grace  introduces  no  new  moral  principle,  but  merely  ap- 
plies those  of  the  other  covenant  in  a  new  case. 

2.  Mark  the  condescension,  and  wisdom,  and  goodness, 
and  love  of  God,  in  making  the  principles  on  which  our 
eternal  salvation  must  be  secured,  essentially  necessary 
to  our  social  existence,  our  civil  and  political  well-being. 
How  ought  we  to  wonder  at  such  condescension  ?  To 
admire  such  wisdom  ?  To  melt  in  view  of  such  good- 
ness ?  To  kindle  in  rapturous  devotion  and  unfeigned 
thanksgiving,  at  such  love. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    DEFINITION    OF    LEADING    TERMS JUST,  RIGHTEOUS, 

RIGHTEOUSNESS,  JUSTIFY,  AND  JUST1FICATONN. 

Due  weight  has  perhaps  never  been  given  to  the  com- 
mon remark,  that  much  controversy  would  be  saved  by 
an  accurate  definition  of  terms.  Words,  with  all  the 
pains  that  have  ever  yet  been  taken  to  settle  their  mean- 
ing, are  still  very  imperfect  representatives  of  thoughts. 
It  becomes  therefore  necessary  to  advert  to  the  leading 
terms  in  this  discussion,  that  their  import  being  accu- 
rately determined,  we  may  be  protected  from  the  vexa- 
tions attendant  upon  vacillation. 

But  here  it  is  necessary  to  premise,  that,  although  I 
have  placed  the  English  words  at  the  head  of  this  chap- 
ter, yet  it  is  really  the  meaning  of  the  original  terms  of  the 
sacred  writings,  after  which  we  must  inquire.  Our  ul- 
timate appeal  is  to  the  language  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  the  true  and  correct  sense  of  that  must  be  attached 
tathe  words  of  our  English  translation,  however  unsuit- 
able these  may  be  to  express  that  sense.  The  transla- 
tion is  admirable,  but  in  hundreds  of  instances,  it  is  not 
possible  to  express  the  exact  meaning  of  a  word  by  any 
one  word  in  another  language.  Such  are  the  changes 
incident  to  human  affairs,  that  language  too  must  change. 
The  merely  English  scholar  will  percieve  the  difficulty 
of  translating  the  words,  cotton-gin,  steam-engine,  re- 
publican, into  the  language  of  a  people  who  have  no 
such  things,  and  consequently  no  words  to  express  them. 
So  in  morals,  the  shades  of  meaning  often  cannot  be  ex- 
pressed. 

This  remark  is  true  in  reference  to  the  word  justifi- 
cation and  its  affiliated  terms.  Justify,  though  not 
strictly  and  purely  a  latin  word,  yet  has  a  latin  origin, 
and  means  to  make  just.     So  sanctification  is  the  mak- 


DEFINITION    OF  LEADING    TERMS.  73 

ing  holy.  Hence,  viz  :  from  the  similarity  of  the  terms 
and  their  composition,  the  Romanists,  ignorant  of  He- 
brew and  Greek  literature,  and  building  up  a  system  of 
self-righteousness,  maintain,  that  justification  includes 
the  same  things  in  a  good  degree  with  sanctification* 
that  is,  it  comprehends  the  making  of  the  person  up- 
right ;  so  that  personal  rectitude,  inherent,  infused  grace 
belongs  to  it  and  is  the  ground  of  it.  And  this  notion, 
if  I  am  not  mistaken,  has  not  a  few  advocates  at  the 
present  day  in  some  Protestant  Churches  of  our  country. 
It  is  therefore  the  more  important  for  us  and  imperative 
upon  us,  to  derive  our  ideas  from  the  inspired  sources 
of  the  Bible,  and  to  attach  to  the  half  latin,  half  English 
word  justification,  exactly  that  meaning  which  the  Spir- 
it of  God  attaches  to  the  words  for  which  it  stands.  Our 
inquiry  is  therefore  continually  after  the  meaning  of 
those  words  in  the  original  scriptures,  for  which  the 
terms  justification,  righteousness,  &c,  stand  in  our 
English  Bibles. 

As  to  the  manner  of  prosecuting  the  inquiry,  it  may 
be  observed,  that  no  satisfaction  is  attainable  in  such  a 
case,  without  a  patient  examination  of  many  places  where 
the  words  in  question  occur.  Use  alone  is  the  law  of 
language;  Words — mere  sounds  or  marks  have  no  fixed 
meaning  in  themselves  ;  they  are  conventional  signs  of 
thought,  and  we  must  inspect  their  actual  use  to  ascer- 
tain what  sense  men  have  agreed  to  attach  to  them.  By 
this  means  criticism  even  in  a  language  which  men  do 
not  understand,  may  be  made  intelligible  to  them,  in  a 
considerable  degree.  How  this  is,  will  be  best  explained 
in  practice.  Let  us  therefore  proceed  to  the  detail,  and 
the  mode  I  propose,  is  to  quote  several  passages  and  to 
number  them  1,  2,  3,  &c.  for  convenience  of  reference  : 
then  state  the  true  meaning  of  the  terms,  referring  by 
number,  to  the  passage  for  proof. 

1.  Gen  xliv.  16.  "And  Judah  said,  What  shall  we 
say  unto  my  Lord  ?  What  shall  we  speak  ?  or  how  shall 
we  clear  (justify)  ourselves  ? 

2.  Exod.  xxiii.  7.  "Keep  thee  far  from  a  false  mat-* 
ter :  and  the  innocent  and  righteous,  slay  thou  not :  for 
I  will  not  justify  the  wicked." 

7 


74  DEFINITION    OF    LEADING  TERMS. 

3.  Deut.  xxv.  1.  "If  there  be  a  controversy  between 
men,  and  they  come  into  judgment,  that  the  judges  may 
judge  them,  then  they  shall  justify  the  righteous  and 
condemn  the  wicked." 

4.  2  Sam.  xv.  4.  "Absalom  said  moreover,  O  that  I 
were  made  Judge  in  the  land,  that  every  man  which 
hath  any  suit  or  cause  might  come  unto  me,  and  /  would 
do  him  justice99 — -justify  him. 

5.  1  Kin.  viii.  31,  32.  "  If  any  man  trespass  against 
his  neighbour,  and  an  oath  be  laid  upon  him  to  cause 
him  to  swear  and  the  oath  come  before  thine  altar  in  this 
house  :  then  hear  thou  in  heaven,  and  do  and  judge  thy 
servants,  condemning  the  wicked,  to  bring  his  way  up- 
on his  head  ;  and  j testifying  the  righteous,  to  give  him 
according  to  his  righteousness." 

6.  2  Chron.  xix.  5,  6.  "And  he  set  judges  in  the 
land,  throughout  all  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah,  city  by 
city  ;  and  said  to  the  judges,  take  heed  what  ye  do  :  for 
ye  judge  not  for  man,  but  for  the  Lord,  who  is  with 
you  in  the  judgment." 

7.  Psal.   cxliii.   2.     "And  enter  not   into  judgment 
with  thy  servant:  for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living  be 
justified" 

8.  Prov  xvii.  15.  "  He  that  justijieth  the  wicked, 
and  he  that  condemneth  the  just,  even  they  both  are 
abomination  to  the  Lord." 

Prov.  xxiv.  23,  24.  "  It  is  not  good  to  have  respect 
to  persons  in  judgment.  He  that  saith  unto  the  wicked, 
thou  art  righteous;  him  shall  the  people  curse,  nations 
shall  abhor  him." 

9.  Isa.  v.  22,  23.  "  Woe  unto  them  that  are  mighty 
to  drink  wine,  and  men  of  strength  to  drink  strong  drink. 
Which  justify  the  wicked  for  reward,  and  take  away 
the  righteousuess  of  the  righteous  from  him." 

10.  Isa.  xliii.  26.     "Put  me  in  remembrance  :  let  us 
plead  together:    declare  thou  that  thou  mayest  be  justi- 
fied.99 

11.  Isa.  xlv.  23,  24,  25.  "  I  have  sworn  by  myself, 
the  word  is  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteousness,  and 
shall  not  return,  that  unto  me  every  knee  shall  bow, 
every  tongue  shall  swear.     Surely  shall  one  say,  in  the 


DEFINITION    OF  LEADING   TERMS.  75 

Lord  have  I  righteousness  and  strength ;  even  to  him 
shall  men  come  ;  and  all  that  are  incensed  against  him 
shall  be  ashamed.  In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Is- 
rael be  justified  and  shall  glory." 

Rom.  xiv.  10,  11.  "We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Christ.  For  it  is  written,  as  I  live,  saith 
the  Lord,  every  knee  shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue 
shall  confess  to  God." 

12.  Isa.  liii.  11.  "By  his  knowledge  shall  my 
righteous  servant  justify  many ;  for  he  shall  bear  their 
iniquities." 

13.  Math.  xi.  19.  "  Wisdom  is  justified  of  her  chil- 
dren." 

14.  Math.  xii.  37.  "For  by  thy  words  thou  shalt 
be  justified,  and  bv  thv  words  thou  shalt  be  condemn- 
ed." 

15.  Luke,  vii.  59.  "  And  all  the  people  that  heard 
him,  and  the  Publicans,  justified  God,  being  baptised 
with  the  baptism  of  John." 

16.  Luke  x.  29.  "  But  he,  willing  to  jutify  himself, 
said  unto  Jesus,  and  who  is  my  neighbour." 

17.  Luke  xvi.  15.  "Ye  are  they  which  justify  your- 
selves before  men,  but  God  knoweth  your  hearts." 

18.  Luke,  xviii.  14.  "  This  man  went  down  to  his 
house  justified  rather  than  the  other." 

19.  Acts,  xiii.  39.  "  And  by  him  all  that  believe  are 
justified  from  all  things,  from  which  they  could  not  be 
justified  by  the  law  of  Moses." 

20.  Rom.  ii.  13.  "  For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law 
are  just  before  God ;  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be 

justified.1'' 

21.  Rom.  iii.  4.  "That  thou  mightest  be  justified 
in  thy  sayings." 

22.  1.  Cor.  iv,  4.  "  For  I  know  nothing  by  myself ; 
yet  I  am  not  hereby  justified  ;  but  he  that  judgeth  me  is 
the  Lord." 

I  cite  all  the  remaining  cases  in  which  the  word  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament.  Rom.  iii.  24,  26,  28,  30. 
iv.  2,  5.  v.  1,  9.  vi.  7.  viii,  30.  1.  Cor.  vi.  11.  Gal.  ii. 
16,  17.  iii.  8,  11,  24.  v.  4.  1.  Tim.  iii.  16.  Tit.  iii.  7. 
Jas.  ii.  21,  24,25.  Rev.  xxii.  11. 


76  DEFINITION  OF    LEADING  TERMS, 

With  these  passages  before  us,  we  affirm, 

1.  That  the  original  words  of  scripture,  for  which  the 
word  justify  is  used  in  the  Bible,  are  forensic  terms  ; 
that  is,  they  are  used  in  connexion  with  the  proceedings 
of  courts — they  imply  a  process,  more  or  less  formal, 
of  investigation  and  of  judgment.  Their  proper  appli? 
cation  is  to  judicial  matters. 

2.  That  they,  the  Hebrew  word  particularly  (from 
which  the  Greek  borrows  its  meaning,  so  far  as  the 
New  Testament  is  concerned)  signify,  to  pass  a  sentence 
pf  judgment  in  favor  of  a  person — to  declare  him  just — ■ 
that  he  has  the  righteousness  of  the  law — his  conduct 
has  been  as  the  law  requires  it  to  be. 

Both  these  will  appear  true  by  a  reference  to  the  above 
quoted  texts. 

1.  Judah  and  his  brethren  were  arraigned  before  the 
governor  of  Egypt,  on  a  charge  of  stealing  the  silver 
cup.  It  is  a  judicial  business  ;  and  he  asks  how  shall  we 
clear  ourselves  ?  How  shall  we  justify  ourselves?  How 
shall  we  procure  a  sentence  in  our  favour  1 

2.  This  case  is  a  rule  prescribed  to  the  judges  in  Is- 
rael, and  God  supports  it  by  warning  the  judges  that 
He  will  not  justify — pass  a  sentence  in  favor  of  the 
wicked. 

3.  Here  are  mentioned  "  a  controversy  between  men," 
"they  come  to  judgment,"  before  "judges."  who  are 
appointed  for  this  express  business  ;  and  who  are  bound 
to  pass  a  sentence  according  to  right ;  that  is,  in  favour 
of  the  man  who  has  done  right,  and  against  the  man 
who  has  done  wrong.  The  former  is  to  justify,  the 
hitter  is  to  condemn. 

Let  us  take  in  connexion  with  this  the  5th  case,  where 
Solomon  speaks  of  condemning  the  wicked,  and  justify- 
ing the  righteous  and  also  the  8th,  where  Solomon  again 
contrasts  the  two  kinds  of  sentences,  \'\z:for  and  against, 
and  calls  the  former  a  justifying  and  the  latter  a  con- 
demning, and  the  9th,  Isaiah  speaks  of  justifying  the 
wicked  as  an  enormity  on  which  a  man  is  denounced, 
and  by  constrast,  of  taking  away  the  righteousness  of 
the  righteous,  or  not  giving  him  his  just  reward  ;  and 
14th,  where  our  Lord  in  like  manner,  uses  the  terms 


DEFINITION  OF    LEADING  TERMS.  77 

justify  and  condemn,  as  expressing  the  opposite  judg- 
ments. 

Here  we  have  five  instances  of  this  contrast.  Now  it 
is  undenied  and  undeniable,  that  the  plain  meaning  of 
condemnation,  is  the  passing  of  a  sentence  against  a  per 
son,  by  which  the  punishment  prescribed  by  law  is 
awarded  to  him,  and  ordered  to  be  inflicted  upon  him  ; 
therefore  justification  is  the  passing  of  a  sentence  in  fa- 
vour of  a  person,  by  which  the  reward  prescribed  by 
law  is  ordered  to  be  given  to  him.  Nothing  can  be 
more  conclusive  than  the  evidence  of  these  two  positions. 
If  then  the  term  to  justify  is  judicial,  and  means  simply 
to  pass  sentence  in  favour,  it  follows,  that  to  infuse  grace, 
to  make  the  person  just  or  holy,  to  change  his  moral 
character  is  no  part  of  justification.  It  is  simply  and 
solely  a  declarative  act,  and  only  affects  the  legal  rela- 
tions of  the  person.  Before  the  judge  pronounces  the 
sentence  against  a  man,  he  is  wicked  and  deserves  to  be 
punished,  just  as  much  as  after:  yet  there  is  no  person 
entitled  to  inflict  the  punishment,  until  the  judge  hands 
him  over.  But  in  condemning  him,  the  judge  does  not 
infuse  wicked  principles  into  him,  he  does  not  make  him 
deserving  of  punishment ;  but  simply  declares  the  fact. 
So,  before  the  judge  pronounces  in  favour  of  a  man,  he 
is,  as  the  law  requires  him  to  be,  upright;  the  judge 
simply  declares  the  fact,  he  does  not  at  all  alter  the 
moral  qualities  of  the  man.  Justification  therefore  is 
entirely  distinct  from  Sanctiftcation,  which  describes 
the  whole  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  changing  a  sin- 
ner into  the  holy  image  of  God.  The  one  refers  simply 
and  only  to  the  legal  relations;  the  other  to  the  moral 
qualities  ;  the  former  is  the  work  of  the  judge,  the  latter 
is  the  work  of  the  Creator;  that  gives  me  legal  security 
forever;  this  qualifies  my  heart  for  its  enjoyment. 

Another  inference  from  this  settlementof  the  term  jus- 
tification, is,  that  the  idea  of  pardon  is  not  included  in  it. 
Pardon,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  hereafter,  is  the  pass- 
ing by  of  a  condemned  person,  so  as  not  to  inflict  just 
punishment  on  him  ;  it  releases  him  from  the  bonds  by 
which  he  was  bound  to  suffer.  It  changes  his  relation 
to  the  penal  sanction  of  law  ;  it  does  not  at  all  suppose 

IT* 


78  DEFINITION  OF    LEADING  TERMS. 

the  person's  fulfilment  "of  its  preceptive  claim.  "Bui 
this  we  may  lay  aside,"  says  Dr.  Owen,  (Justification 
p.  118)  "  for  surely  no  man  was  ever  yet  so  fond  as  to 
pretend  that  Sixaioto  did  signify  to  pardon  sin  ;  yet  is  it 
the  only  word  applied  to  express  our  justification  in  the 
New  Testament." 

Having  determined  the  sense  of  the  principal  terms,  it 
remains  to  examine  the  other  two  ;  viz :  Righteousness 
and  Just. 

Righteousness  is  simply  straightness :  and  figuratively 
expresses  the  correct  notion  of  the  thing.  It  suggests 
the  idea  of  the  law  being  a  right,  a  straight  line,  and  the 
accommodation  of  a  person's  conduct  to  the  law,  is  right- 
eousness. But  the  original  expression  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which,  be  it  remembered,  must  ever  determine 
the  meaning  of  the  phraseology  in  the  New,  is  very 
nearly  allied  to  the  word,  to  justify.  It  is  indeed  the 
same,  or  rather,  there  are  two  words,  or  two  forms  of 
the  same  word,  translated  righteousness.  And  I  ven- 
ture the  criticism  with  diffidence,  not  having  full  time 
for  a  sufficiently  extended  examination  ;  that  one  of  them 
(tsedek)  signifies  all  that  which  the  law  requires  of  posi- 
tive compliance  with  its  precepts,  in  order  to  secure  a 
sentence  of  justification  ;  the  other  (tsedauhah)  all  that 
which  the  subject  of  the  law  has  done,  how  far  soever  it 
may  fall  short  of  the  full  requisition.  My  diffidence  re- 
fers to  the  latter ;  as  to  the  former  I  feel  confident. 
Tsedek,  righteousness,  is  all  that  to  which  the  promise 
of  the  covenant  is  made;  the  entire  required  sum  of  pos- 
itive obedience  to  the  precept.  So  in  Jeremiah  xxiii.  5, 
speaking  of  the  Messiah,  the  prophet  says  "  This  is  the 
name  whereby  he  shall  be  called  the  Lord  our  Right- 
eousness." The  Lord  our  Redeemer  is  to  us  the  fulfill- 
ing of  the  whole  law  ;  he  is  made  of  God  unto  us  wis- 
dom and  righteousness  and  sanctification  and  redemp- 
tion. Therefore  he  replied  to  the  Baptist's  objections 
against  baptising  him ;  "  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all 
righteousness."  The  Mosaic  law,  in  reference  to  the 
high  priest,  required  him  to  be  washed  previously  to  his 
entering  upon  the  duties  of  his  office.  Exod.  lx.  12. 
"  And  thou  shalt  bring  Aaron  and  his  sons  unto  the  door 


DEFINITION    OF   LEADING  TERMS.  79 

of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  wash  them 
with  water."  Hence  as  Christ  came  to  fulfil  all  law,  as 
he  is  the  end  of  law  for  righteousness,  he  must  be  wash- 
ed. Hence  some,  ignorant  by  the  blinding  zeal  of  party, 
suppose  that  Christ  submitted  to  Christian  baptism, 
which  was  not  yet  instituted  and  that  he  was  submerged. 
Were  Aaron  and  his  sons  submerged  in  the  wash  bowl  ? 
But  we  may  not  digress.  The  Saviour's  reply  shows, 
that  to  do  what  the  law  requires,  is  righteousness, 

Deut.  vi.  25.  "And  it  shall  be  our  righteousness,  if 
we  observe  to  do  all  these  commandments  before  the 
Lord  our  God,  as  he  hath  commanded  us."  Action  ac- 
cording to  the  requirement  of  law — doing  the  command- 
ments, is  our  righteousness. 

Psalm  cvi.  3.  "  Blessed  are  they  that  keep  judgment, 
and  he  that  doeth  righteousness  at  all  times."  Active 
compliance  with  the  rules  of  right,  is  always  account- 
ed the  sum  and  substance  of  righteousness. 

Prov.  xiv.  34.  "  Righteousness  exalteth  a  nation, 
but  sin  is  a  reproach  to  any  people."  Here,  as  in  mul- 
titudes of  cases,  righteousness  and  sin  are  brought  into 
contrast ;  and  therefore  the  one,  becomes  expository  of 
the  other.  Now  "sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law" 
— the  action  of  the  moral  being  in  opposition  to  the  law. 
For  even  in  those  which  are  denominated  sins  of  omis- 
sion, there  is  mental  action.  Because  when  the  law's 
requisition  is  pressed  upon  the  mind's  attention,  by  the 
incidents  of  Providence,  and  the  man  does  not  act  ac- 
cording to  it,  this  not  acting  of  the  hand  is  a  result  of  a 
decision  of  the  mind  not  to  direct  the  hand  to  act,  in 
Which  decision  the  mind  itself  is  active.  So  that  sins  of 
omission,  are  so  called,  only  in  reference  to  the  overt  or 
external  bodily  action ;  not  in  reference  to  the  mind.  If 
therefore  sin  consists  in  action  contrary  to  law;  and  if  it 
be  the  opposite  of  righteousness,  righteousness  must  be 
action  according  to  law. 

It  does  appear  to  me  superfluous  to  dwell  upon  this 
branch  of  the  subject.  All  men,  one  would  think,  must 
admit  the  correctness  of  our  definition.  Let  us  then  ac- 
count this  question  as  settled :  its  practical  value  will  ap- 
pear hereafter. 


80  DEFINITION  OF    LEADING  TERMS. 

The  term  just,  must  be  accounted  in  our  discussions, 
equivalent  to  righteous  ,for  the  very  cogent  reason,  that 
they  are  used  interchangably  as  a  translation  for  one  and 
the  same  word.  For  example,  Noah  is  called  a  just 
man,  Gen.  vi.  9  ;  and  in  vii.  1,  God  says  to  him,  "  for 
thee  have  I  seen  righteous  before  me,"  whereas  in  the 
original,  the  same  word  occurs  in  both  places  ;  and  many 
more  such  cases  might  be  selected.  The  equivalency 
of  the  terms  is  therefore  indisputable. 

Nor  can  the  general  meaning  detain  us.  The  original 
expression  is  the  same  on  which  we  have  dwelt  so  long. 
It  is  here,  what  grammarians  would  call  a  participial  ad- 
jective: that  which  expresses  the  quality  of  the  verb,  as 
existing  in  the  person  who  performs  the  action  which 
the  verb  describes.  He  is  a  just  or  righteous  man  who 
has  done  only  the  things  required  of  him  by  the  law 
under  which  he  exists.  "  He  that  doeth  righteousness 
is  righteous." 

To  sum  up  the  whole  matter — there  is  a  law  given, 
which  prescribes  to  man  what  he  ought  to  do :  it  re- 
quires the  active  use  of  all  the  talents  entrusted  to  him. 
But  the  prescription  of  duty,  the  investment  with  a  tal- 
ent, implies  a  day  of  reckoning  for  its  use  :  and  a  judge 
to  agitate  and  decide  the  question  whether  it  has  been 
used  aright,  whether  the  actions  required  by  law  have 
all  been  performed.  This  judge  is  to  pronounce  upon 
the  case  and  declare  the  facts  as  they  really  are.  If  he 
find  the  person  to  have  acted  in  all  respects  as  the  law  pre- 
scribes, he  simply  declares  the  fact.  This  declaration 
of  the  fact  is  justification.  The  ground  of  it  is  the  up- 
right conduct  of  the  man,  to  which  upright  conduct  the 
reward  is  promised.  This  is  the  man's  righteousness* 
His  being  in  possession  of  this,  in  other  words  his  hav- 
ing acted  rightly,  makes  him  a  just  or  righteous  man  :  and 
the  judge's  declaration  makes  him  a  justified  man,  and 
as  a  matter  of  mere  justice  and  right  may  and  must  claim 
the  rewards  of  obedience. 

In  conclusion  let  us  remark, 

1.  The  identity  of  the  very  terms,  and  also  of  the 
things  signified  by  them,  in  this  great  question  of  human 
destinies  for  the  world  beyond  the  grave  and  for  the  life 


DEFINITION   OF    LEADING  TERMS.  81 

that  now  is.  All  human  jurisprudence,  and  the  appli- 
cation of  its  principles  in  the  judicial  affairs  of  men  on 
earth,  rests  on  the  broad  basis  of  God's  eternal  truth. 
How  dignified  then  the  study  of  the  law  ?  What  a  noble 
science  it  is,  when  not  prostituted  to  the  love  of  money  ? 
It  has  itsrmoral  rules  of  right :  its  rational  agents  ;  its  ac- 
countability  ;  its  judges  and  advocates  ;  its  justification  or 
condemnation.  It  borrows  its  principles  from  religion 
and  its  sanctions  from  God ;  whilst  it  lends  its  terms  to 
theology  and  leads  its  subjects  from  reflections  upon 
an  earthly  and  fallible,  to  a  heavenly  and  infallible  tri- 
bunal.    For 

2dly.  The  whole  of  our  ideas  about  justification  must 
have  reference  to  a  process  of  judgment.  From  this  the 
language  is  borrowed,  and  is  well  adapted  to  carry  our 
thoughts  forward,  toward  that  grand  assize — that  awfully 
solemn  and  magnificent  scene,  when  the  universe  shall 
stand  before  the  great  white  throne  of  our  Redeemer  and 
give  in  their  last  account.  Oh  what  a  vast  assemblage  ! 
What  a  stupendous  scene  !  !  How  all  the  pageant  of 
earthly  tribunals  sinks  into  insignificance  before  its  daz- 
zling splendours  !  How  all  bosoms  become  transparent 
in  that  light,  and  all  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  lie  open  to 
public  view.  You  my  dear  friends  will  be  there,  and  I. 
How  important  then,  that  we  have  the  righteousness  of 
the  law  !  "  Lord,  who  shall  abide  in  thy  tabernacle  ? 
Who  shall  dwell  in  thy  holy  hill  ?  He  that  walketh  up- 
rightly, and  worketh  righteousness,  and  speaketh  the 
truth  in  his  heart.  He  that  doeth  these  things  shall 
never  be  moved."  He  who  can  in  truth  say,  in  the 
IiOrd  have  I  righteousness. 


CHAPTER  V. 


adam's  justification. 


The  Requisites  to  Mam's  Justification  by  the  Cove- 
nant of  Works. 

We  have  examined  into  the  nature  of  moral  govern- 
ment, in  general.  We  have  enquired  into  the  peculiar- 
ities of  that  institution  which  was  given  to  man  imme- 
diately after  his  creation,  as  it  involved  the  great  essen- 
tial principles  of  moral  rule.  We  have  discussed  the 
extent  of  the  covenant,  and  the  representative  character 
of  Adam.  We  have  settled  the  meaning  of  the  term 
Justification,  and  those  allied  to  it.  Out  of  these  views 
naturally  arises  the  enquiry,  What  must  Adam  do,  in 
order  to  his  justification  by  the  terms  of  the  Covenant 
under  which  he  was  placed  1  What  is  indispensible  be- 
fore God  the  Judge,  can  pronounce  him  a  just  man? 

The  obvious  and  only  correct  answer  to  this  is, 
Righteousness — action  according  to  law.  He  must  do 
the  things  required  of  him,  before  it  is  possible  that  God 
should  declare  him  just.  The  law  must  be  fulfilled  be* 
fore  it  can  confer  the  reward  proffered  to  its  fulfilment. 
The  work  must  be  performed  or  it  would  not  berjght  to 
give  the  wages. 

The  truth  here  will  be  clearly  perceived  by  adverting 
to  three  particulars,  viz  :  Innocence,  the  positive  re- 
quirement of  the  covenant,  and  the  necessity  of  a  limit 
to  probation. 

SECTION  I. 

Innocence. 

Innocence,  we  have  already  seen,  is  as  it  were,  a  ne- 
gative virtue.     It  implies  freedom  from  positive  evil :  a 


THE  REQUISITES  TO  ADAm's    JUSTIFICATION.  83 

harmlessness,  rather  than  any  positive  action.  This 
simply  entitles  to  a  negative  reward — the  absence  of 
penal  evil.  The  innocent  ought  not  to  suffer.  So  long 
as  Adam  shall  remain  free  from  sin,  he  shall  experience 
none  of  its  evils.  And  this  is  the  utmost  he  can  expect. 
Unless  we  have  been  entirely  mistaken  in  our  exposi- 
tion of  the  general  nature  of  moral  government,  exemp- 
tion from  sin  is  accompanied  by  exemption  from  punish- 
ment. The  essence  of  moral  government  consists  in 
linking  indissolubly  together  sin  and  suffering  :  freedom 
from  sin  and  freedom  from  pain :  positive  compliance 
with  law  and  positive  enjoyment  of  happiness.  To  mul- 
tiply words  here  were  to  darken  counsel. 

SECTION  II. 
On  the  positive  requirements  of  the  Covenant, 

In  treating  of  the  covenant  given  to  Adam  we  saw* 
that  under  the  prohibitory  clause,  regarding  the  fruit 
forbidden,  there  was  contained  a  positive  requirement 
of  action  in  the  case.  The  mind  of  Adam  in  view  of 
the  fruit  must  decide  either  to  eat  or  not  to  eat :  and  it 
is  not  conceivable  that  this  decision  involves  no  activity 
of  the  mind.  A  choice  cannot  be  made  without  mental 
action.  Had  Adam  determined  not  to  eat,  that  determi- 
nation would  have  been  as  really  an  [action,  as  what 
occurred  when  he  determined  to  eat. 

We  also  saw  that  under  the  commination,  "  Thou 
shalt  surely  die,"  was  presented  the  opposite  alterna- 
tive as  a  consequence  of  the  opposite  course  of  conduct. 
"  Thou  shalt  surely  live"  was  as  really  held  up  before 
his  mind  as  a  motive  to  obedience,  as  the  threatened 
death  was  as  a  dissuasive  from  disobedience.  As  with 
the  people  of  Israel  when  God  set  before  them  life  and 
death,  cursing  and  blessing,  so  life  was  promised  to 
Adam  as  the  reward  of  obedience,  and  death  was  threaten- 
ed as  the  consequence  of  disobedience.  To  obtain  life,  he 
must  not  only  avoid  sin,  he  must  also  perform  duty.  If 
then  Adam  will  have  life,  he  must  keep  the  command- 
ment given  to  him.     If  he  do  this,  the  promised  blessing 


84  THE  REQUISITES  TO  ADAM's    JUSTIFICATION. 

must  be  conferred.  Faithfulness  on  God's  part  secures 
this.  Here  then  is  the  simple  requisite  to  Adam's  justi- 
fication— he  must  do  what  God  enjoined  upon  him — he 
must  obey  God — he  must  keep  the  commandment — he 
must  fulfil  the  covenant  engagement.  Should  he  do  this, 
all  that  is  right,  and  holy,  and  just,  and  true,  in  the 
character  of  God,  is  pledged  to  secure  him  in  the  en- 
joyment of  the  promised  life  :  and  the  declaration  of 
his  having  so  fulfilled  the  law  given  him,  is  his  justifi- 
cation. Hence  it  is  evident,  that  the  only  requisite  to 
Adam's  justification  under  the  original  covenant,  was 
obedience,  righteousness,  conformity  with  that  laic. 

SECTION  III. 

The  limit  to  probation. 

There  is  a  third  element  here,  viz:  the  limit  to  proba- 
tion.— Probation  is  trying,  proving,  testing  a  thing  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not,  it  be  what  it  professes  to  be. 
A  state  of  probation  or  a  probationary  state  is  a  state  of 
trial.  Adam  under  the  covenant  of  works  was  in  a 
state  of  probation.  The  whole  period  between  the  time 
of  a  moral  creature's  being  ushered  into  existence,  and 
the  time  when  he  passes  under  the  judgment  of  the  law, 
and  is  condemned  or  justified,  is  probationary  ;  and  to 
this  period  the  word  probation  has  been  generally  re- 
stricted. Recent  writers  and  preachers  have  indeed, 
with  characteristic  laxity  of  thought  and  expression,  ap- 
plied it  to  the  present  state,  under  the  gospel:  and  if  due 
care  were  taken  to  limit  and  define  its  meaning  to  the 
testing,  proving,  trying,  of  men  whether  they  will 
hearken  to  the  invitations  of  mercy,  or  reject  them, 
little  or  no  injury  would  result.  But  it  is  much  to  be 
feared,  that  the  very  use  of  the  word  in  application  to 
our  present  state,  gives  encouragement  and  strength  to 
that  pride  of  heart,  which,  amidst  all  its  defects  and 
corruption,  still  looks  to  the  old  broken  covenant,  and 
vainly  hopes,  by  enduring  a  probation  of  works,  to  esta- 
blish its  own  righteousness. 

Now  the  point  to  which  our  attention  must  be  given. 


THE  REQUISITES  TO  ADAM's    JUSTIFICATION.  85 

is  the  high  probability  that  in  the  nature  of  moral  gov- 
ernment, there  must  necessarily  be  a  limit  to  probation 
— a  point  of  time  at  which  trial  ceases  and  the  rewards 
of  virtue  or  of  vice  are  conferred.  For  our  purposes,  it 
is  not  indispensable  to  maintain  the  essential  necessity 
of  such  limit,  in  order  to  the  full  idea  of  moral  govern- 
ment. All  that  our  cause  requires  is,  that  such  limit 
must  be,  in  every  case,  where  the  universal  principles 
of  morals  are  modified  by  a  special  covenant.  Where 
specific  terms  are  prescribed  and  a  reward  promised 
upon  the  fulfilment,  there  must  be  a  limit  as  to  time  ; 
otherwise  the  ^reward  never  could  be  claimed.  If  the 
probation  is  eternal,  it  never  can  be  completed  ;  and  if 
the  reward  is  conditioned  on  the  completion  of  the  ser- 
vice, the  proffer  of  it  is  mockery.  If,  therefore  we 
have  been  correct  in  our  exposition  of  those  scriptures 
which  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works, 
there  must  have  been  a  limit  or  period  of  time  up  to 
which,  if  Adam  had  maintained  his  integrity,  he  would 
have  been  confirmed  and  established  and  secured  for- 
ever in  the  enjoyment  of  life.  After  the  precise  period, 
it  is  in  vain  to  enquire.  The  scriptures  are  silent,  be- 
cause it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  know  it ;  seeing  that 
Adam  violated  his  covenant  engagement,  and  put  an  end 
to  the  state  of  trial.  Probation  ceases,  as  soon  as  the 
person  fails  who  is  under  trial — the  trial  is  then  over;  it 
only  remains  to  let  the  law  do  its  duty,  in  condemning 
and  executing  the  offender. 

SECTION  IV. 

Righteousness  the  grand  Requisite. 

Hence  the  general  conclusion,  that  compliance  with 
the  terms  of  the  covenant — in  other  words,  obedience  to 
the  command  of  God  for  the  time  allotted  him — in  other 
words,  righteousness,  was  the  only  requisite  to  Adam's 
justification  according  to  the  covenant:  "for  if  there 
had  been  a  law  given  which  could  have  given  life,  verily 
righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  law.  But  the 
scripture  hath  concluded  all  under  sin."  Gal.  iii.  31, 
8 


86  THE  REQUISITES  TO  ADAM's   JUSTIFICATION. 

22.  Had  Adam  possessed  the  righteousness  of  the  law, 
he  would  have  been  justified,  and  life  been  awarded  to 
him.  But  inasmuch  as  he  acted  contrary  to  the  law, 
he  and  all  his  are  under  condemnation  ;  being  delivered 
over  by  the  law,  to  its  just  punishment,  according  to  the 
express  terms  of  the  covenant. 

Let  us  treasure  up  for  future  use,  then,  the  important 
truth,  that  to  secure,  for  himself  and  his  posterity,  a 
sentence  of  justification  by  the  covenant,  it  was  neces- 
sary for  Adam  only  to  obey:  the  righteousness  that 
must  justify  him,  includes  not  in  it,  but  manifestly  ex- 
cludes the  idea  of  suffering.  Adam's  active  obedience 
to  law,  for  the  proper  period,  would  have  entailed  eter- 
nal life  upon  the  entire  race. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON    THE  BREACH     OF     THE     COVENANT    AND     THE     CONSE- 
QUENT   ADDITIONAL  REQUISITE    TO  ADAM'S 
JUSTIFICATION. 

SECTION  I. 

God's  condescension  calculated  to  secure  mail's  affec- 
tion. 

Never  can  we  sufficiently  admire  and  adore  that  con- 
descension, ia  the  Most   High,  by  which  he  bowed  the 
heavens  and  came  down  to   familiar  equality  with  man, 
and  made  with  him  a  covenant,  so  admirably  calculated 
to  secure   his  everlasting  well-being.     No  hard  terms 
were  prescribed  :    no  complicated  and  difficult  duty,  no 
additional  burdens  were  imposed.     A  single  instance  of 
restriction  from   an   indulgence  of  sense,  is  the   whole 
matter.     All  creation  lies  before  him.     Every  luxury  of 
new-born   nature  courts  his    enjoyment.      The    virgin 
blushes  of  a  finished  creation  attract  his  eye  ;  and  the 
ambrosial  fruits   of   an  enchanting  paradise  regale  his 
taste.     His   unclouded   intellectual  powers  too,  fit  him 
for  scanning  the  beauties  of  surrounding  nature,  and  the 
still  more   enchanting  glories  of  the  starry  firmament. 
His  moral  powers,  undefaced  by  lust,  fit  him   for  holy 
intercourse  with  angelic  hosts  and  with  the  Lord  of  all 
below  and  all  above.     Thus  made  for  happiness,  and  re- 
plenished with  all  the  means  of  its  present  possession 
and  enjoyment — his  mind  and  its  desires   unrestrained 
in  their  range,  except  in   the   single  matter  of  the  fruit 
forbidden  ;  and  even  this  restraint  the  easy  condition  of 
everlasting  security  in  bliss  ;  it  were  marvellous  indeed, 
if  man's  conformity  with   God's  requirement  did   not 
give  the  rivet  of  eternity  to  human  happiness  and  trans- 
form Eden's  bloom  into  the  unfading  glories  of  the  hea- 
venly paradise. 


88  BREACH  OF  THE  COVENANT 

Marvellous  and  unlikely,  however,  as  it  must  pros* 
pectively  appear,  all  this  has  happened.  Man  trans- 
gressed and  by  transgression  robbed  Eden  of  its  beauty, 
dimmed  the  lustre  of  the  starry  firmament,  and  shut  out 
the  light  of  heavenly  joys  from  his  own  benighted  soul. 

SECTION  II. 

The  mysterious  fact,  mail's  fall,  occasioned  through 
false  views  in  the  mind. 

The  fall  of  man  is  among  the  dark  rolls  of  historical 
record. — The  evidence  of  it  quivers  in  every  nerve,  and 
thunders  in  bursting  sighs  from  every  heart  of  the  race. 
How  it  was  or  could  be,  philosophy  cannot  tell,  and  the 
Bible  is  silent.  I  mean  the  manner  in  which  the  pure 
spirit  of  Adam  could  be  induced  to  believe  the  devil  ra- 
ther than  God — how  our  first  parents  could  be  made  to 
put  good  for  evil,  and  evil  for  good,  we  know  not.  Only 
this  is  certain,  that  the  mind  cannot  choose  evil  as  evil, 
for  its  own  sake.  The  law  of  universal  life  is,  that 
every  living  being  desires  happiness.  This  law  is  irre- 
versible even  in  hell.  Devils  damned  and  forever  lost, 
can,  no  more  than  men  on  earth,  desire  pain  and  anguish 
for  their  own  sakes.  Before  evil  can  be  chosen,  it  must 
appear  to  be  good.  A  man  may  choose  that  which 
causes  pain,  as  a  means  of  greater,  and  more  permanent 
happiness,  as  when  he  takes  a  sickening  potion  of  med- 
icine ;  but  the  act  of  choice  is  produced  by  a  balancing 
in  the  mind,  between  present  temporary  pain  and  future 
permanent  pleasure.  In  this  process,  whenever  the 
mind  perceives  the  happiness  of  restored  and  permanent 
health,  and  apprehends  its  reality  attainable  by  means  of 
a  temporary  sickness  and  its  attendant  miseries,  the  at- 
tracting influence  of  the  former  overpowers  the  repulsion 
of  the  latter,  and  choice  preponderates  in  favor  of  re- 
ceiving the  nauceous  medicine.  The  enterprising  mar- 
iner chooses  to  brave  the  perils  and  to  endure  the  pains 
of  a  tempestuous  voyage,  not  for  their  own  sake,  but  be- 
cause of  the  wealth  and  means  of  happiness  that  lie  be- 
yond  the  boisterous  ocean.     Evil  must  assume   in  the 


THROUGH  FALSE  VIEWS.  89 

mind's  apprehension  the  appearance  of  good,  before  it 
can  be  deliberately  chosen.  And  this  theory  corres- 
ponds with  the  historical  fact ;  our  first  mother  "  being 
deceived  was  in  the  transgression."  1.  Tim.  i.  14. 
"  And  when  the  woman  saw  the  tree  was  good  for  food, 
and  that  it  was  pleasant  to  the  eye,  and  a  tree  to  be  de- 
sired to  make  one  wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof  and 
did  eat,  and  gave  also  unto  her  husband  with  her,  and  he 
did  eat."  Gen.  iii.  6.  Apprehended  good,  and  that  only, 
can  lead  the  mind  to  a  deliberate  choice:  and  where  the 
thing  chosen  is  really  evil,  there  must  previously  exist 
some  deception — some  false  view  of  it  in  the  mind  as 
the  moving  cause  of  the  choice.  In  point,  then  of  veri- 
table fact,  sin  entered  into  the  world  by  and  through  the 
door  of  a  deluded  understanding,  a  fact  this  to  be  care- 
fully treasured  up,  for  it  will  be  found  of  no  small  value 
in  our  future  discussion  on  the  second  covenant. 

SECTION  HI. 

Ji  loss  of  confidence  in  God  led  to  the/all. 

Another  aspect  of  this  transaction  it  may  be  well  briefly 
to  notice,  viz :   the  withdrawal  of  confidence  from  God, 
and  the  exercising  of  it  upon  Satan.     God  had  declared 
that   death  would  follow  eating  the  fruit,  Satan  affirmed 
the    contrary — "ye   shall  not  surely  die." — Here  are 
counter  assertions,  and  the  faith  of  our  first  parents  failed 
in  reference  to  God's  testimony,  and  passed  over  to  the 
credence   of  the   deceiver  and   tempter.     Hence,   it  is 
manifest,  that  unbelief  is  implied  in  the   very  nature  of 
sin.     The  law  says,  ruin  will  follow  transgression  ;  the 
the  subject  of  law  says,  no — I  cannot  believe  it — I  shall 
be  wiser  and  happier  after  transgression.     If  a  man  re- 
ally believes  that  a  certain  action  will  ruin  his  reputation 
disgrace  his  family,  and  render  him  permanently  wretch- 
ed, can  he  will  its   performance  ?     Or  is  it  the  hope  of 
escaping  detection  and  punishment,  that  emboldens  crime? 
Unbelief,  therefore,  in  the  truths  of  the  testimony  borne 
by  the  law,  is  involved  in  every  sin. 
8* 


90  BREACH  OF  THE   COVENANT 


SECTION  IV. 


The  effects  of  sin  upon  the  legal  relations  and  liabil- 
ities of  Adam. 

And  here  the  mere  statement  must  suffice,  because  an 
enlargement  would  anticipate  an  allotment  of  another 
chapter.  It  is  only  necessary  to  say,  that  the  moment 
sin  is  committed  the  perpetrator  is  condemed  by  the  law. 
In  human  administrations  of  law,  indeed,  time  and  for- 
mal processes  are  necessary,  before  a  sentence  of  con- 
demnation can  be  regularly  pronounced;  but  the  indi- 
vidual mind  forms  its  decision  as  soon  as  it  becomes 
acquainted  with  the  fact  that  the  law  has  been  transgresed. 
And  with  God,  forms  of  process  and  examinations  of  wit- 
nesses have  no  place.  His  sentence  falls  as  soon  as 
sin  is  committed,  and.  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  Adam 
sunk  under  the  power  of  death  the  moment  he  sinned. 
The  penalty  of  the  law  then  seized  him,  "  thou  shalt 
surely  die." 

This  point,  is  so  obvious,  it  is  so  perfectly  accordant 
with  the  common  sense  of  all  men  ;  and  so  plainly  as- 
sumed in  all  the  Bible  says  on  the  subject,  that  I  am 
not  aware  of  its  having  been  seriously  controverted. 
Certainly  it  needs  but  be  stated,  to  be  believed.  All  the 
world  believes,  that  the  covenant  breaker  must  abide  the 
penal  sanction  of  his  covenant.  Adam  by  sin  incurred 
the  punishment  of  death. 

But  here  a  question  meets  us,  of  considerable  practical 
importance  because  of  its  bearings  upon  the  grand  doctrine 
of  justification,  viz:  does  the  great  moral  principle,  involv- 
ed in  the  covenant  continue  to  bind  Adam  after  his  trans 
gression  ?  Is  he  under  obligations  of  universal  obedi- 
ence to  the  will  of  God  made  known  to  him  ?  Has  the 
law  a  claim  upon  him  still,  notwithstanding  his  rebellion  ? 
Can  both  its  penal  and  preceptive  claims  bear  upon  the 
same  person?  And  at  the  same  time  ?  Can  a  man  be 
bound  both  to  do  and  to  suffer  the  will  of  God?—  See 
Owen  on  Jus.  240. 

It  is  more  than  likely  your  minds  are  already  made 


AND  LIABILITIES  OF  ADAM.  91 

up.  Your  answer  is  at  hand,  and  that  an  affirmative. 
Well,  but  whilst  decision  is  a  virtue,  rashness  is  a  vice. 
Look  well;  think  closely;  mark  consequences  before 
you  commit  yourself.  Among  these,  if  you  affirm,  are 
the  difficulties,  because  of  the  penalty,  which  lie  in  the 
way  of  fullfiling  the  precept.  If  a  man  steal,  and  be  in- 
carcerated for  his  offence,  how  can  he  actively  labor  to 
make  reparation,  by  fulfilling  the  laws  of  honesty.  If 
he  murder  and  be  executed,  how  can  he  fulfil  the  law  of 
love?  If  he  sin  against  God  and  be  cast  into  the  prison 
of  despair  and  die  under  the  curse,  how  can  he  glorify 
the  law  by  a  holy  obedience  ?  Would  it  not  be  unjust 
to  demand  of  the  imprisoned  thief,  or  murderer,  or  rebel 
against  God,  a  hand  and  a  heart  actively  employed  in 
the  holy  duties  of  love  ?  How  can  they  perform  them? 
If  both  the  precept  and  penalty  may  hold  a  man,  is  he 
not  bound  to  impossibilities  ?  And  can  a  man  be  bound 
by  impossibilities  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  if  you  deny  that  the  penal  claims 
of  law  upon  Adam  are  additional  to  the  pre-existing  pre- 
ceptive claims.  In  other  words,  if  you  maintain  that 
when  the  penalty  seizes  him,  the  precept  lets  him  go — 
that  he  cannot  be  held  by  both  at  the  same  time ;  then 
among  the  troublesome  consequences  are — 

1.  Release  from  moral  obligation  by  its  infraction. 
Sin  itself  releases  the  sinner  from  the  obligation  to  obev. 
Consequently, 

2.  The  moment  transgression  cancels  the  obligation 
to  obey,  there  can  be  no  farther  transgression,  because 
there  is  no  law  requiring  active  obedience,  and  where 
there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression.  Sin,  after  the 
first  sin,  there  can  be  none. 

3.  Therefore  no  moral  being  can  commit  any  but  one 
sin.      Consequently, 

4.  There  can  be  no  gradation  in  criminality,  except 
as. to  the  magnitude  of  the  first  offence  ;  for  there  can 
be  no  multiplication  of  offences. 

5.  Consequently,  the  devil  is  no  more  vile  and  guilty 
now,  than  at  the  first  moment  of  his  fall  ;  and  his  inter- 
minable advancement  in  wretchedness  is  impossible;  for 
it  would  be  obviously  unrighteous  to  increase  the  misery 


92  BREACH  OF  THE  COVENANT 

of  a  criminal  whose  criminality  was  not  increased. — 
Consequently, 

6.  Satan  and  all  his  friends  are  in  a  state  of  sinless 
perfection — for  generations  of  generations  they  have  ex- 
isted without  violating  the  law  of  God  ;  for  there  is  no 
law  over  them,  requiring  their  active  obedience.     For, 

7.  The  penalty  is  mere  suffering,  inflicted  by  the  law 
as  its  expression  of  hatred  against  sin,  and  the  suffering 
soul  cannot  be  willing  to  suffer,  for  the  obvious  reason 
that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  its  nature  ;  and,  moreover 
it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Because  the  very  idea  of 
enduring  pain  implies  revulsion  of  nature  ;  opposition  of 
will.  Should  Satan  yield  up  his  will  to  the  will  of  God 
and  acquiesce  in  the  torments  of  hell,  is  it  not  manifest 
that  hell  that  moment  changes  its  character  and  becomes 
a  place  of  happiness. 

8.  But  again,  as  to  civil  society,  for  you  will  still  bear 
in  mind  that  morality  is  still  morality,  whether  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  God  or  of  man.  The  religion  of  the  Bible 
is  the  morality  that  must  govern  man  here  and  hereafter 
— now  and  forever.  The  criminal  on  whom  the  hand 
of  penal  justice  is  laid,  is  lifted  above  all  law,  except, 
simply,  the  law  which  makes  him  to  suffer.  Whilst 
suffering  for  theft  he  cannot  commit  theft,  because  he  is 
not  bound  now  by  the  law's  precept  which  forbids  it. 
And  so  of  all  other  offences.  And  so  there  is  an  end  of 
all  law  and  all  government,  human  and  divine.  There 
is  no  difference  between  virtue  and  vice.  Let  us  eat 
and  drink  and  profane  and  blaspheme  God,  there's  a  ju- 
bilee in  hell  and  to  build  a  bridge  across  the  impassable 
gulph  is  no  longer  desirable. 

Such  are  some  of  the  troublesome  consequences  of 
maintaining  that  the  precept  of  law  ceases  to  bind  a  man 
at  the  moment  he  falls  under  its  penalty — that  the  moral 
precept  and  the  penal  sanction  cannot  run  parallel  with 
one  another.  Hence  we  conclude  that  moral  obligation 
to  holy  obedience  is  eternal.  Its  cessation  would  make 
the  sinner  independent  of  God.  This  doctrine  cuts  a 
short  way  to  heaven,  right  through  the  shades  of  hell. 
It  is  false,  and  the  truth  rises  from  its  ruins.  Adam  and 
his  tempter  are  now  bound  and  were  at  first  bound  and 


AND  LIABILITIES  OF  ADAM.  93 

will  forever  be  bound  equally  to  obey  God's  will  made 
known  to  them.  Consequently,  the  penal  obligation  is 
additional  to  Adam.  And  if  he  could  have  been  justified 
by  the  covenant  before  its  violation,  only  by  its  positive 
fulfilment — by  working  righteousness — he  can  after- 
wards be  justified  only  by  working  righteousness,  and 
exhausting  the  whole  curse  of  the  law — satisfying  its 
penal  claim.  Before  he  can  come  up  to  the  law  in  its 
covenant  form  and  claim  the  promised  life,  he  must  fulfil 
precept  and  penalty  both.  Before  God  can  declare  him 
a  just  man,  that  is,  justify  him,  he  must  be  just  indeed. 
These  two  things  are  indispensable  to  Adam's  obtaining 
life  by  the  covenant.  He  must  exhibit  a  righteousness 
as  long  and  as  broad  as  the  law,  and  he  must  endure  the 
wrath  of  God. 

Upon  the  whole  subject,  let  us  remark,  in  closing, 

1.  The  understanding  of  man  failed  him — he  was  foil- 
ed by  the  tempter,  before  sin  enfeebled  his  powers  ; 
much  less  now,  when  the  soul  is  in  ruins,  can  man's 
wisdom  adequately  direct  him  in  the  path  of  duty  and 
qualify  him  to  withstand  the  wiles  of  the  devil.  There- 
fore 

2.  He  who  trusteth  to  his  own  heart  is  a  fool;  pride 
of  intellect  shuts  the  door  of  heaven,  and  a  haughty 
spirit  goes  before  a  fall. 

3.  Sin  does  not  diminish  our  moral  responsibilities. 
It  always  increases  them. 

4.  Hence  the  inevitable  necessity  of  eternal  torment 
to  the  finally  impenitent.  The  fires  of  the  second  death 
burn  upon  the  lost  spirit.  It  rises,  writhes,  and  resists. 
Its  anguish  and  maddened  resistance,  burst  forth  in  fiercer 
and  still  more  fierce  enmity  against  God  who  taketh 
vengeance.  This  increase  of  virulent  wickedness,  calls 
down  renewed  expressions  of  divine  wrath,  and  thus 
the  breath  of  blasphemy  fans  the  flames  of  everlasting 
death. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

OF  THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAM's   SIN,    TO    HISMELF  AND 

TO    HIS  POSTERITY  ;    PHYSICALLY,  INTELLECTUALLY, 

AND  MORALLY. 

To  believe  that  effects  proceed  from  causes,  is  an  ori- 
ginal, and  I  am  disposed  to  think,  an  inexplicable  law  of 
the  human  mind.  If  I  am  seized  with  a  sudden  and 
violent  pain  in  my  head,  I  infer  instantly,  that  it  proceeds 
from  some  cause  ;  and  though  I  may  not  be  able  to 
trace  the  connexion  and  to  ascertain  satisfactorily  what 
the  cause  is,  the  belief  still  remains  fixed  in  my  mind, 
that  this  violent  pain  is  consequent  upon  some  other 
violent  change  in  the  system — some  stoppage  of  some 
blood  vessel,  which  does  violence  to  some  nerve — and 
this  is  called  the  cause :  and  its  eluding  my  search,  does 
not  in  the  least  degree,  shake  my  belief  in  the  reality  of 
its  existence. 

Now  though  I  use  the  word  consequences  at  the  head 
of  this  chapter,  yet  you  are  not  to  expect  me,  even  to 
attempt  here,  to  show  the  connexion — to  display  the 
manner  in  which  the  antecedent,  sin,  draws  after  it  the 
consequences  or  effects.  The  design  is  cherished, 
simply  to  deal  in  the  facts  of  the  case,  viz  :  to  shew 
that  consequent  upon  the  sin  of  Adam — subsequently 
thereto,  certain  facts  took  place  in  our  world,  and  do 
take  place.  The  question,  in  reference  to  the  alleged 
facts,  shall  still  be  the  simple  and  very  proper  enquiry, 
proposed  to  the  first  Christian  martyr,  by  the  chief  jus- 
tice, when  presiding  in  that  court,which  was  to  pronounce 
upon  his  life  or  death — "Are  these  things  so  ?"  Certain 
positions  will  be  stated  on  the  three  points,  respectively, 
and  this  question  will  be  answered  in  reference  to  them. 
As  to  the  legal  relations  of  the  facts  we  may  discover — 
how,  and  how  far  they  are  connected  with  the  conduct 
of  Adam,  viewed  as  right  or  wrong — as  a  fulfilment  or 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAltt's  SIN.  95 

breach  of  the  covenant  under  which  he  was  placed  ;  that 
belongs  to  the  great  doctrine  of  original  sin,  to  which 
our  attention  will  be  called  shortly.  Then,  it  will  be  in 
point  to  raise  the  question — is  man's  bodily  infirmity 
connected  with  his  sin — is  it  a  penal  evil  ? — With  his  in- 
tellectual imbecility  ?  his  moral  depravity  ?  Now,  let 
the  enquiry  be  simply,  "Are  these  things  so."  And  I 
affirm,  that  the  physical  constitution  of  Adam,  and  of 
his  whole  race,  is  deranged,  injured,  and  enfeebled  by 
sin. 

Whether  the  body  of  Adam,  was  rendered  immortal 
by  the  use  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  subsequently  rendered 
mortal  by  the  physical  operation  of  the  fruit  forbidden, 
is  a  speculation,  more  curious  than  profitable.  We  are 
certain  however  that  death  is  the  wages  of  sin.  Nor 
should  there  be  any  doubt,  as  to  the  nature  of  that  death. 
It  did,  undoubtedly,  include  the  dissolution  of  the  body. 
"Dust  thou  art  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return."  That 
bodily  dissolution  was  to  be,  and  is,  brought  about  by 
moral  evil,  is  not  difficult  to  perceive.  The  first  death 
that  transpired  in  the  family  of  Adam  teaches  us  to  refer 
bodily  dissolution  very  directly,  to  moral  depravity.— 
Corrupt  passions  wrankled  in  the  heart  of  Cain  and  led 
to  the  death  of  his  brother.  The  same  corrupt  feelings 
now  tend  directly  to  derange  the  system  of  the  indi- 
vidual in  whose  bosom  they  are  fostered,  and  to  enfeeble, 
by  deranging  the  action  of  its  parts,  the  power  of  that 
action.  Just  as  we  see  its  operation  now,  so  was  it 
from  the  beginning.  Moral  turpitude  shortens  human 
life  and  renders  that  short  life  wretched.  It  is  matter  of 
every  day's  observation,  that  the  victims  of  vice  do  not 
live  half  their  days.  And  hence  we  should  expect  that 
such  as  experience  the  power  of  religion  and  lead  lives, 
in  the  main,  virtuous,  other  things  being  equal,  would 
live  longer  than  wicked  men.  And  observation  upon  the 
the  facts,  abundantly  confirms  the  theory  here.  So  the 
scriptures,  which  refer  to  the  pure  state  at  which  the 
church  shall  arrive,  represent  it  as  characterised  by  an 
extension  of  human  life.  "  There  shall  be  no  more 
thence  an  infant  of  days  nor  an  old  man  that  hath  not 


96  CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAM's  SIN. 

filled  his  days :  for  the  child  shall  die  an  hundred  years 
old :  but  the  sinner  being  an  hundred  years  old  shall  be 
accursed,"  Isa.  lxv.  20.  "  There  shall  yet  old  men  and 
old  women  dwell  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,"  Zech. 
viii.  4.  Whether  then  it  be  directly,  or  indirectly,  sin 
undoubtedly  has  operated  most  injuriously  upon  the 
physical  constitution.  No  man  can  make  himself  be- 
lieve, that  pain,  disease,  feebleness,  and  death  temporal, 
are  unconnected  with  sin. 

But  there  is  one  aspect  of  the  subject,  to  which  more 
particularly  our  attention  ought  to  be  directed  viz,  :  that 
these  ruinous  effects  did  not  fall  upon  Adam,  peculiarly 
in  his  own  person.  Indeed  his  life  is  among  the  longest 
in  the  human  annals  ;  and  the  presumption  is,  that  it  was 
not  particularly  burdened  with  sickness,  pain  and  an- 
guish. Whereas  in  later  periods,  the  duration^of  life  has 
dwindled  to  less  than  one-tenth  of  his,  and  even  these 
few  days  are  full  of  evil.  Here,  every  man  carries  the 
evidence  of  the  fact  in  his  own  consciousness  :  he  feels 
it,  and  knowrs  that  his  bodily  constitution  is  in  a  corrupt 
and  feeble  state.  That  it  is  so,  as  a  result  of  moral  evil, 
will  farther  appear  in  the  sequel.  Let  us  meanwhile  re- 
member, that  the  first  parent  and  all  his  descendants  par- 
ticipate in  those  physical  defects  which  lead  to  death  and 
dissolution, 

SECTION  II. 

Adam  and  all  his  children  have  svffered  in  their  inteU 
lectual  powers  by  the  fall. 

That  our  first  parents  were  omniscient ;  or  that  they 
made  a  very  close  approximation  to  omniscience,  we 
have  not  maintained.  But  that  they  became  wiser  by 
sin  we  must  deny.  To  lead  the  mind  to  the  conclusion, 
that  sin  has  darkened  it,  the  following  considerations 
will  probably  suffice. 

1.  Our  first  parents  vainly  attempted  to  conceal  their 
degenerate  and  fallen  state  from  God.  This  they  did  by 
sewing  fig  leaves  together,  and  by  hiding  "  themselves 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  God  amongst  the  trees  of 


CONSEQUENCES  O*  ADAM's  SIN.  97 

the  garden."  A  sense  of  guilt  led  to  folly,  but  the  folly 
is  not  therefore  the  less  manifest.  Did  innocent  Adam 
ever  betray  such  ignorance  as  to  think  he  could  conceal 
himself  from  the  searching  eye  of  his  maker  ?  Did  ever 
that  pure  aud  holy  being,  who  had  heretofore  delighted 
in  the  presence  of  God,  display  such  ignorance  of  his 
character? 

2.  The  same  is  evinced  by  the  attempt  to  deceive 
God  by  a  false,  or,  at  least,  an  unkind  and  disingenuous 
excuse.  "  The  serpent  beguiled  me  and  I  did  eat — the 
woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me,  she  gave  me 
of  the  fruit  and  I  did  eat." 

3.  What  is  true  of  the  father  is  also  true  of  the  chil- 
dren. The  intellect  of  man  is  enfeebled — his  under- 
standing is  darkened  :  he  knows"  not  the  things  of  the 
spirit  of  God.  As  this  is  a  controverted  point — as  some 
Christians  seem  to  maintain  the  doctrine  that  sin  ha? 
not  enfeebled  the  powers  of  the  human  intellect — ■ 
and  as  their  doctrine  must  be  refuted  and  rejected,  or 
the  doctrine  of  spiritual  illumination  cannot  be  maintain- 
ed, it  will  be  necessary  to  look  a  little  more  in  detail 
into  the  scripture  testimonies  here.  These  may  be 
classed  into  such  as  directly  affirm  the  blindness  of  the 
mind,  and  such  as  indirectly  teach  it. 

I.  The  mind  is  often  represented  as  blind.  "  The 
Lord  shaH  smite  thee  with  blindness — and  thou  shalt 
grope  at  noon  day,  as  the  blind  gropeth  in  darkness'* 
Deut.  xxviii.  28.  Here  is  reference  to  blindness  of 
mind  :  as  a  curse  for  sin,  God  would  withdraw  his  light: 
or  which  is  the  same  thing,  he  would  not  strengthen 
their  minds  and  enable  them  to  comprehend  his  truth. 

44  So  Isaiah  vi.  9,  10.  4' Hear  ye  indeed  but  under* 
stand  not ;  and  see  ye  indeed,  but  perceive  not,  make  the 
heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and 
shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear 
with  their  ears,  and  understand  with  their  heart,  and 
convert  and  be  healed."  Here  is  a  mixture  of  figurative 
and  plain  language,  and  it  forces  its  own  interpretation 
upon  us.  What  is  this  ?  Did  God  create  ignorance- 
mental  blindness  '.  Create — a  negative  !  !  What  then  ! 
Can  it  mean  any  thing  more  than  God's  withholding 
8 


08  CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAM'S  SIN. 

those  influences  of  his  spirit  which  alone  can  give  clear- 
ness and  strength  to  the  intellect,  and  enable  men  to 
comprehend  things  heavenly  and  divine?  Assuredly  the 
Saviour's  application  of  this  passage  Math.  xiii.  13, 
plainly  demonstrates  a  deficiency  "  in  the  faculty  of  un- 
derstanding." 

The  same  thing  is  taught  in  those  numerous  instances 
of  our  Saviour's  restoring  sight  to  the  blind.  It  cannot 
be  reasonably  doubted,  that  his  holy  providence  refused, 
at  the  first,  to  give  natural  vision  to  the  man  born  blind, 
in  order  to  afford  an  opportunity  to  the  Saviour,  of  dis- 
playing his  own  sovereign  and  al  i  ightv  power  iu  giving 
him  the  faculty  of  vision ;  and  therein  teaching  the  doc- 
trine of  spiritual  illumination  by  a  supernatural  influence. 
So  he  often  speaks  of  the  natural  state  of  the  soul  or 
mind,  as  a  state  of  darkness  and  blindness;  and  Paul 
speaks  of  their  "  having  the  understanding  darkened." 
"  Blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel."  From  a 
portion  of  this  nation  God  has  been  pleased  to  withhold 
the  spiritually  illuminating  influences  of  his  grace.  They 
are  left  in  their  native  darkness. 

II.  The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  illumination,  implies, 
the  soul's  previous  darkness.  Every  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture, therefore,  that  inculcates  the  fact,  or  the  necessity 
of  such  illumination,  teaches  also,  the  doctrine,  that  man's 
intellect  is  degraded,  darkened,  and  enfeebled  by  sin. 

Now  Paul,  Ep.  i.  17,  prays,  **  That  the  God  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  father  of  glory,  may  give  unto 
you  the  spirit  of  wisdom  ?md  revelation  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  him  ;  the  eyes  of  your  understanding  being  en- 
lightened,"— and  again,  iii.  17 — ''Trial  Christ  may  dwell 
in  our  hearts  by  faith,  that  ye  being  rooted  and  ground- 
ed in  love,  may  be  able  to  comprehend  with  all  saints, 
what  is  the  breadth,  and  length,  and  depth,*"  and  height, 
and  to  know  the  love  of  God"  Jeremiah  xxiv.  7,  says 
concerning  those,  whose  blinding,  Isaiah  described,  "and 
I  will  give  them  a  heart  to  know  me" — and  to  this  ac- 
cords the  Saviour's  declaralions.  Malt.  xi.  27,  "and  no 
man  knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father;  neither  knoweth 
any  man  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomso- 
ever the  son  will  reveal  him."     And  those  to  whom  he 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAM'S  SIN.  99 

does  not  reveal  him,  know  him  not;  as  Christ  says, 
Jo.  viii.  55,  *«  ye  have  not  known  him."  Christ  also 
promises  the  Holy  Gliost  to  "  teach  you  all  things'* — to 
take  of  mine  and  shew  it  unto  you — and  ye  need  not 
that  any  man  teach  you,  for  the  same  anointing1,  viz: 
the  spirit,  teacheth  you  all  things" — and  without  this 
teaching,  the  *«  natural  man  understandeth  not  the  things 
of  the  spirit  of  God,  neither  can  he  know  them,  for  they 
are  spiritually  discerned."  All  these  and  many  more 
passages  of  scripture,  carry  home  to  the  mind,  unsophis 
ticated  by  a  metaphysical  theology,  a  full  and  thorough 
conviction,  that  the  understanding  of  man  needs  to  be  en- 
lightened,  and  is  therefore  darkened,  and  unable  without 
this  supernatural  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  comprehend 
divine  things.  The  powers  of  the  mind — the  faculties 
of  the  soul  are  not  annihilated,  but  deranged  in  a  degree, 
enfeebled  so  that  they  do  not  in  fact,  nor  can  they,  until 
renovated,  reinvigorated,  discern  holy  things.  The 
mental  eye  is  not  indeed  entirely  destroyed,  but  so  dis- 
torted, its  fluids  so  displaced  and  mixed  up,  that  no  clear 
and  distiuct  vision  is  possible ;  until  the  good  and  the 
great  Physician  shall  have  operated  upon  it;  restored  its 
deranged  parts,  and  ensured  their  right  action]  towards 
one  another,  and  let  in  upon  it,  according  to  the  strength 
ef  its  resuscitated  powers,  light  from  the  sun  of  righ- 
teousness. 

It  is  objected  to  all  this,  that  the  eyes  of  the  under- 
standing, unaided  by  the  Spirit,  do  not  indeed  compre- 
hend the  truths  of  religion,  in  a  right  and  saving  manner; 
but  this  is  not  owing  to  any  defect  in  its  powers  ;  but  to 
a  deficiency  of  light,  because  of  some  external  hindrances. 
Spiritual  truth  does  not  enter  the  eye  of  mental  vision 
and  hence  cannot  be  understood  ;  but  the  powers  of  per- 
ceiving remain  undiminished,  and  all  that  is  necessary  is 
to  remove  the  film  or  external  hindrance  ;  the  light  en- 
ters and  the  man  knows  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  Those 
external  hindrances  are  the  lusts  and  corruptions  of  the 
flesh,  which  blind  the  eyes  of  the  understanding  by  pre- 
venting the  light  of  truth  from  entering.  In  conversion 
these  lusts  are  removed,  and  the  light  enters  and  men 
see  clearly. 


100  CONSEQUENCES  OF  adam's  SIN. 

To  this  I  answer,  1,  There  is  here  a  little  false  phi- 
losophy. It  is  assumed  that  the  lusts  which  prevent 
spirtual  vision  are  external  to  the  understanding — in  fact, 
that  they  exist  out  of  the  mind.  They  are  like  the  wall 
of  a  contiguous  house,  which  darkens  my  window,  but 
forms  no  portion  of  my  house.  Or  at  least  it  is  as~ 
suraed  that  the  understanding  is  one  part  of  the  mind, 
and  the  corrupt  affections  another  part,  and  this  latter 
part  still  throws  its  opaque  mass  before  the  other  and  in- 
tercepts and  turns  into  its  own  dark  bosom,  the  rays 
from  the  sun  of  righteousness.  Now  this  I  suppose,  is 
false  philosophy.  For  the  mind  is  a  simple  substance. 
It  does  not  consist  of  parts.  The  understanding  is  not 
one  part  of  the  soul,  and  the  lusts,  or  affections,  another 
part.  The  understanding  is  the  mind  itself,  perceiving 
and  comparing  things — reasoning  ;  and  the  lusts  or  de- 
sires are  the  mind  itself,  desiring.  The  understanding 
has  no  existence  apart  from  the  mind ;  the  corrupt  af- 
fections or  holy  affections,  have  no  existence  apart  from 
the  mind  ;  and  therefore,  all  that  language  which  goes  to 
represent  the  sinful  desires,  as  standing  outside  and  pre- 
venting religion  from  entering  into  an  apartment  of  the 
mind  already  well  disposed  to  receive  it — all  swept  and 
garnished  for  its  reception,  is  well  adapted  to  lead  to  de-* 
eeption,  and  must  be  utterly  discarded. 

2.  The  very  reason  of  the  objection  admits  a  fact  fa-> 
tal  to  the  objection,  viz  :  that  the  corrupt  lusts  prevent 
the  understanding  from  seeing  spiritual  things  aright. 
We  agree  in  the  fact.  But  now  these  lusts  are  as  much 
in  the  mind  as  the  powers  of  understanding.  The  de- 
ficiency, therefore,  is  in  the  mind,  and  we  cannot  look 
beyond  itself,  for  the  causes  of  this  deficiency.  If  you 
conceive  the  understanding  to  be  one  part  of  the  mind, 
and  the  lusts  another  part  of  the  mind,  standing  between 
the  former  and  the  sun  of  Righteousness  ;  I  ask,  why 
does  not  the  understanding  remove  the  obstruction  ?  If 
it  cannot  remove  the  obstruction,  it  must  abide  in  dark- 
ness. And  this  is  the  evidence  of  its  imbecility.  But 
I  am  not  now  to  discuss  the  doctrine  of  ability,  and  the 
preceeding,  will,  I  hope,  satisfy  you  as  to  the  humbling 
fact  in  reference  to  the  whole  race  of  Adam,  thatbyrea-? 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAM's  SIN.  101 

son  of  sin  they  have  "  become  vain  in  their  imaginations, 
and  their  foolishheart  was  darkened" — "professing  them- 
selves wise,  they  became  fools,"  "darkness  covered  the 
earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  people." 

SECTION  III. 

The  moral  affections  of  Adam  and  his  posterity  be- 
came depraved  by  his  sin. 

Few  men  have  been  so  left  to  the  unrestrained  do- 
minion of  sin,  as  to  have  denied  altogether  its  corrupt- 
ing influences  on  the  heart — as  to  have  maintained  that 
the  feelings  and  affections  of  the  race  are,  and  always 
have  been  such  as  became  the  Creator  originally  to  pro- 
duce. Rarely  has  the  effrontery  of  infidelity  so  run 
riot,  as  to  charge  upon  the  Creator,  the  folly  and  the  crime 
of  creating  man  as  he  is,  with  all  his  wickedness  in  him. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  generally  agreed,  even  by  the  open 
neglecters  of  religion,  that  man  was  originally  created 
holy  and  upright — that  his  corruption  did  not  originate 
with  his  maker,  but  had  its  origin  in  his  own  voluntary 
action.  All,  it  appears  to  me,  who  admit  an  essential 
difference  between  virtue  and  vice,  go  thus  far  in  the 
way  of  truth. 

The  bible  account  of  man's  corruption  is  simple.  He 
disobeyed  the  command  of  God,  and  God  left  him,  in  a 
degree,  to  the  desires  of  his  own  heart.  Previously  to 
this  dereliction  from  the  path  of  duty,  the  divine  power 
sustained  and  directed  the  action  of  human  affections  to- 
wards himself;  but  afterwards  God  withheld,  to  some 
extent,  those  influences  by  which  the  heart  of  Adam  was 
drawn  toward  himself,  and  a  consequence  was,  aliena- 
tion from  his  maker;  Adam's  ieelings  and  affections 
wandered  after  forbidden  joys.  He  sought  his  happi- 
ness, not  in  the  delightful  communion  of  God  ;  but  in 
intercourse  with  the  creature.  Like  his  children  in  a 
distant  age,  he  loved  and  served  the  creature  more  than 
the  Creator.  His  conduct  in  hiding  from  God,  to  which 
we  have  referred  for  another  purpose,  is  also  available 
here.  It  shews  an  alienation  of  affection.  Had  his  4e- 
9* 


102  CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAM'S  SIN. 

light  been  in  God  as  the  chief'good,  this  desire  for  con- 
cealment could  not  have  possessed  his  mind.  Of  his 
moral  feelings  we  have  not  another  exhibition  in  the 
bible  history  ;  but  the  course  of  God's  dealings  plainly 
shows  that  man's  heart  was  not  upright  in  him — he 
sought  out  many  inventions.  "  Adam  being  in  honour 
abode  not." 

Now  '*  who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  un- 
clean ?  Not  one."  Consequently  as  was  the  parent  of 
the  race  so  is  the  race.  Many  a  proverb  expresses  this 
general  truth.  "The  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  the 
fountain."  "  Men  do  not  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  nor 
figs  of  thistles."  "  Every  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit." 
The  parent  stock  of  the  race,  must  send  forth  scions  ac- 
cording to  its  own  nature.  Such  is  the  judgment  of 
common  sense  :  that  is,  of  mankind  in  general,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  proverb — like  begets  like.  Such  also  is 
the  plain  declaration  of  the  Bible.  "  Adam  begat  a  son 
in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image;  and  called  his  name 
Seth."  That  his  first  son  was  morally  depraved,  his 
conduct  testifies;  and  that  his  second  was  so  also,  Abel's 
sacrifice,  which  he  offered  to  God,  fully  acknowledged. 
"  And  Abel  he  also  brought  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock 
and  of  the  fat  thereof."  Here  was  a  bloody  sacrifice, 
wherein  there  is  set  forth  and  confessed,  on  the  part  of 
the   worshipper,  desert  of  death. 

The  I  ory  of  the  race  from  that  period  until  Noah's 
mission,  a  space  of  more  than  fourteen  hundred  years, 
brief  as  it  is,  affords  sufficient  evidence  on  the  point  of 
moral  character,  greatly  to  strengthen  our  position. 
And  at  ;  is  period,  the  testimonies  are  exceedingly 
plain  as  pointed,  as  plain.     For  "God  saw  that  the 

wickf  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,   and   that 

every  in  agination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was 
only  evil  continually."  "  The  earth  also  was  corrupt 
before  and  the  earth  was  filled  with  violence:  And 

God  l<  Iced  upon  the  earth,  and  behold  it  was  corrupt, 
for  a^i  fle:  h  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth." 
Gen.  5,  11,  12.  Hence  the  flood  of  waters.  But  not 
all  the  bill(  ws  of  the  deluge  could  wash  away  the  pollu- 
tion of  the  earth.     We   see  the  foul  stain  immediately 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  ADAM's  SIN.  103 

after  its  close.  The  vineyard  of  Noah,  the  tower  of 
Babel,  the  plains  of  Nineveh — the  wars  of  the  kings, 
the  life  even  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  of  Jacob  and  of 
the  twelve  patriarchs,  do  they  not  all  testify  to  the  truth, 
that  the  whole  race  is  corrupt  ?  What  is  history,  but  a 
criminal  record  ?  What  are  chronological  epochs  and 
eras,  but  points  rendered  illustrious  by  some  splendid  re" 
suit  of  immorality? 

Shall  I  spend  your  time  and  my  labour  in  making 
more  evident,  the  truth  of  a  position,  whose  truth  burns 
in  every  sting  of  a  condemning  conscience  ;  as  it  throbs 
in  every  sally  of  unholy  desire  ?  Must  the  forms  of  ar- 
gument be  followed  up,  when  you  can  no  more  doubt 
of  the  truth  to  be  convinced  than  you  can  doubt  of  your 
own  existence  ?  Is  it  possible,  in  the  entire  compass  of 
human  thought,  to  select  a  truth  more  thoroughly  riveted 
in  the  convictions  of  the  race,  than  this  very  truth,  that 
the  earth  is  corrupted  before  God — the  thoughts  of 
man's  heart  are  only  evil  continually — the  heart  is  de-- 
ceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked  ?  Surely 
not,  and  therefore  I  lorbear.  But  let  us  remember  dis- 
tinctly, the  matter  before,  as  merely  a  matter  of  fact — 
such  is  the  moral  character  of  the  race.  This  is  the 
fact.  The  mode  as  to  its  legal  bearings  is  not  before 
us.  We  have  seen,  indeed,  how  it  follows  Adam's"sin  ; 
but  the  nature  and  necessity  of  this  consequence  will 
appear  in  our  next.  Let  us  close  this  with  one  or  two 
reflections. 

1.  We  are  mortal.  Our  bodies  are  infected  with  the 
virus  of  corruption  and  tend  rapidly  to  decay.  Death 
will  soon  shut  our  eyes  on  all  that  earth  holds  dear  to 
us.  A  century  hence,  and  this  living  earth,  we  call 
ourselves  and  which  we  cherish  so  tenderly,  will  lie  un- 
discriminated in  its  kindred  clay.  What  a  fact,  this  for 
the  contemplation  of  the  rational  mind  !  How  humbling 
to  human  pride  !   How  instructive  to  the  wise  in  heart !  ! 

2.  "  Vain  man  would  be  wise,  though  man  be  born 
like  a  wild  ass*s  colt,1'  Pride  of  intellect !  how  pre- 
sumptuous !  Let  us  remember  that  our  intellectual 
strength  must  come  from  God. 

3.  Who  of  us  can  wash   his  hands  before  God,  and 


tft)4  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

say  I  am  clean  ?  Yea,  let  us  bide  our  heads  in  tho 
dust  before  him.  Our  first  father  became  corrupt  and 
we  are  unclean.  Let  each  one  for  himself  confess, 
"  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me."  Yet  let  us  not  faint,  but  pray. 
**  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean  ;  wash  me, 
and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ON  ORIGINAL  SIN. 
SECTION   I. 

Hie  Definition  of  the  term. 

**  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law."  With  this 
definition  of  the  Apostle,  I  am  content.  A  better  I  am 
persuaded  no  man  will  ever  present  in  so  few  words. 
That  it  covers  both  the  negative  and  positive  precepts 
we  have  already  seen  ;  or,  to  speak  with  more  preci- 
sion, it  extends  to  all  the  acts  of  mind,  whether  such  as 
occur  when  it  determines  to  obey  God,  in  his  command 
to  abstain  from  bodily  action  ;  or  when  he  directs  to 
perform  it.  The  body  is  the  mere  index  to  the  mind, 
like  the  face  of  a  clock,  shewing  its  internal  action  ;  but 
with  this  exception,  that  like  the  hands  of  a  clock  which 
are  too  loose  on  their  axis,  it  often  fails  to  point  out  the 
movement  of  the  mind  within.  Now  we  are  not  up  to 
the  line  of  truth  and  duty,  when  we  look  merely  at  the 
external  face;  we  must  have  regard  to  the  inward  move- 
ments :  the  mind  itself — the  soul  is  the  moral  being,  it 
alone  is  capable  of  committing  sin.  And  with  Paul  we 
have  seen,  that  sin  is  the  mind's  acting  contrary  to  law, 
The  theory  therefore,  which  makes  sin  a  mere  negative 
is  to  be  discarded  as  mere  theory,  inconsistent  with 
scripture  language  and  with  the  truth  and  facts  of  the 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  105 

case,  and  at  variance  with  sound  philosophy,  that  is, 
with  common  sense.  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the 
law. 

Original  sin  must  then  be  the  original  transgression; 
or  the  transgression  at  the  origin  or  beginning.  And  it 
is  obvious,  the  term  must  be  attached  to  some  person  or 
persons  before  it  becomes  expressive  of  any  particular 
sin.  A  sin  which  occurred  at  the  origin  or  beginning 
of  what  ?  or  whom  ?  The  sense  of  the  phrase,  original 
sin,  must  materially  depend  upon  the  response  to  this 
enquiry.  Should  it  be  answered:  at  the  origin  of  mo- 
ral beings; — then,  as  the  angels  were  created  and  some 
of  them  fell,  perhaps  before  man  was  created,  certainly 
before  he  fell,  original  sin  must  mean  the  sin  of  Satan— 
the  first  sin  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge.  But  in 
this  sense  the  word  is  not  at  all  used  by  Theological 
writers:  and,  as  it  is  not  a  Bible  expression,  we  must 
ascertain  its  right  meaning  from  those  who  do  use  it. 
To  this  we  may  be  aided  by  contrast.  The  Westmin* 
ster  divines,  and  others,  use  the  phrase,  original  right" 
eousness,  to  signify  that  uprightness,  holiness,  recti- 
tude of  moral  character,  which  Adam  possessed  at  his 
creation  and  before  he  sinned :  and  this  they  bring  into 
immediate  contrast  with  the  sin  in  question.  "  By  this 
sin  [original  sin]  they  fell  from  their  original  righteous* 
ness."  And  so,  in  the  IX  Article,  the  English  estab- 
lishment says  of  original  sin,|it  is  that  "  whereby  man  is 
very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness."  In  this, 
which  I  think  is  the  primary,  though  not  the  chief  appli- 
cation of  the  term,  it  is  not  restricted  to  the  act  of  Adam 
and  Eve.  For  we  find  it  extended  by  almost  all  wri- 
ters and  in  almost  all  evangelical  confessions,  to  the 
immediate  effects  of  the  act  upon  the  persons  of  the 
actors.  Thus,  in  the  two  confessions  just  mentioned, 
they  speak  of  man's  loss  of  "  original  righteousness," 
and  of  his  being  "  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil  ;" 
of  destitution  of  holiness  and  of  communion  with  God 
and  so  he  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all 
the  faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and  body." 

But  in  the  same  confessions,  and  in  very  many  other 
writings,  the  phrase  is  applied  to  the  act  of  Adam,  in* 


106  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

elusive  of  its  immediate  consequences  to  his  posterity 
also.  Hence  they  speak  "  of  original  or  birth-sin," 
and  after  mentioning  ».•  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin" — 
the  want  of  righteousness,  corruption,  inability,  opposi- 
tion to  all  that  is  good  and  inclination  to  all  evil,  they 
add,  "  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin"  We 
have  therefore  this  two-fold  practical  definition  of  the 
phrase  original  sin,  in  both  of  which  there  is  a  depar- 
ture from  the  strict  signification  of  the  terms  respective- 
ly, viz:  the  first  act  of  Adam's  disobedience  and  its 
effects  upon  himself ;  and,  the  same  act  with  its  effects 
upon  his  people. 

Should  it  be  objected  that  this  is  a  very  vague  defini- 
tion, it  makes  nothing  precise  and  certain.  I  answer, 
let  us  ever  be  on  our  guard  against  the  supposition  that 
the  definition  of  mere  terms  or  phrases,  can  ever  give  us 
an  accurate  idea  of  the  things.  This  is  not  at  all  the 
design  of  defining  terms.  The  definition  of  a  word, 
simply,  and  only,  points  out  to  what  thing  we  apply  it. 
The  precise  explanation,  exposition,  or  if  you  will,  de- 
finition of  the  thing,  is  a  subsequent  matter,  in  compari- 
son with  which,  the  former  is  a  mere  trifle.  To  know 
that  men  have  agreed  to  apply  the  name  limestone,  to  a 
certain  solid  substance,  is  not  without  some  advantage; 
but  to  know  what  are  the  properties  and  uses  of  that 
substance  is  quite  a  different  thing,  and  of  infinitely 
greater  advantage.  To  know  that  theological  writers 
apply  the  phrase,  original  sin,  first  to  Adam's  first  of- 
fence and  its  effects  upon  himself  personally,  and  also, 
in  the  second  place,  to  Adam's  first  offence,  and  its  ef- 
fects upon  his  posterity,  will  be  found  useful ;  inasmuch 
as  it  will  enable  me  to  turn  your  attention  toward  the 
thing,  in  either  case,  by  the  simple  utterance  of  the 
words.  But  to  understand  the  thing — to  comprehend 
the  relations  of  Adam  and  of  his  people  to  God  and 
his  law;  their  liabilities  in  consequence  of  that  act,  and 
its  effects  upon  him  and  them  ; — this,  how  different  and 
Jiow  infinitely  more  important  ? 


IMPUTATION.  i(V? 

SECTION  IL 
The  definition  of  the  thing* 

Now  the  explanation  of  the  thing,  to  which  the 
phrase  original  sin  is  applied,  is  already  in  part,  before 
you.  The  effects  of  his  act,  in  some  degree,  immediate 
and  more  remote  upon  Adam,  and  also  upon  his  peo- 
ple, in  reference  to  their  physical,  intellectual  and  moral 
constitutions  formed  the  subject  of  the  last  chapter;  and 
yet  they  are  intimately  connected  with  this  discussion, 
and  indeed  form  a  part  of  it.  We  felt  ourselves  obliged 
to  anticipate  a  little,  the  question  concerning  the  legal 
relations  of  Adam.  The  fact,  that  the  precept  of  the 
law  holds  him  responsible  ;  and  the  fact,  that  superad- 
ded is  the  penal  claim,  were  distinctly  stated.  The 
reasons  why  it  must  necessarily  be  so,  were  also  exhi- 
bited, at  least  so  far  as  to  point  out  the  ruinous  conse- 
quences of  maintaining,  that  the  precept  and  the  penalty 
cannot  both  simultaneously  hold  the  subject  of  law. 

The  action  of  charging  upon  Adam  his  sin  ;  and  the 
action  whereby  its  legal  consequence  is  declared,  next 
claims  our  attention,  The  former  of  these  is  called 
imputation  ;  the  latter  condemnation. 

SECTION  III. 

Of  Imputation. 

The  Hebrew  word  (Hashab)  for  impute,  occurs  with 
great  frequency  and  is  variously  translated.  It  signi- 
fies that  operation  of  the  mind,  whereby  we  form  a 
judgment.  It  is  often  difficult  to  discover  and  lay  open 
this  sense  ;  but  I  think  it  always  includes  the  notion  of 
comparing  two  things  together  and  marking  their  agree- 
ment or  difference.  This  is  the  leading  idea — this  ^ope- 
ration of  the  mind  is  what  the  Hebrew  word  is  designed 
to  express.  Hence  it  signifies  to  think.  Gen.  xxxviii, 
15;  "And  Judah  saw  her,  and  thought  her  to  be  an 
harlot."  Gen.  l,  20:  "But  as  for'you,  ye  thought  evil 


108  IMPUTATION. 

against  me,  but  God  meant  [thought']  it  unto  good." 
1.  Sam.  i.  13. — "Eli  thought  she  had  been  drunken." 
The  word  is  sometimes  translated  by  esteem.  Isa.  xxix. 
17.  "Your  fruitful  field  shall  be  esteemed  as  a  forest." 
— liii.  3,  4.  "He  was  despised  and  we  esteemed  him  not 
—we  did  esteem  him  smitten  of  God."  In  all  which  cases 
it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  the  operation  of  mind,  or 
process  of  thought  to  which  I  have  alluded.  Judah 
compared  in  his  mind  the  appearance  of  Tamar,  with 
the  idea  and  dress  of  a  harlot,  and  perceived  their  agree- 
ment. Here  the  judgement  was  in  default,  but  the  pro- 
cess did  take  place  and  he  was  of  opinion,  they  agreed. 
Joseph's  brethren  compared  their  distorted  ideas  of  his 
conduct  with  their  notions  of  what  he  ought  to  be,  and 
they  perceived  a  disagreement ;  and  therefore  connected 
him  with  evil.  But  God,  who  seeth  things  as  they  are, 
thought  otherwise.  Eli  compared  Hannah's  behaviour 
to  a  drunken  person,  and  perceived  an  agreement — he 
imputed  drunkenness  to  her;  just  as  his  brethren  imputed 
evil  conduct  to  Joseph,  and  as  Judah  imputed  unchastity 
to  Tamar.  So  the  fruitful  field  of  the  Israelites  should 
be  compared  to  a  forest  and  perceived  to  agree — so  Jesus 
appeared  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground — they  compared 
him  with  their  ideas  of  Messiah  and  they  found  a  dif- 
ference ;  and  he  was  esteemed  to  be  smitten  of  God. 
The  unbelieving  looked  upon  the  suffering  Saviour;  they 
compared  him  with  such  as  are  under  God's  judgements 
and  seeing  the  agreement,  they  so  considered  him. 
They  imputed  to  him  the  character  of  a  malefactor. 

There  js  therefore  a  judgement  of  the  mind  in  every 
act  of  imputation.  "  To  impute,"  says  Dr.  Owen, 
"  unto  us,  that  which  is  really  ours,  antecedently  unto 
that  imputation,  includes  two  things  in  it,  1.  An  ac* 
knowledgment  or  judgement,  that  the  thing  so  imputed 
is  really  and  truly  ours,  or  was.  He  that  imputes  wis- 
dom or  learning  unto  any  man,  doth  in  the  first  place 
acknowledge  him  to  be  wise  or  learned.  2.  A  dealing 
with  them  according  unto  it,  whether  it  be  good  or  evil. 
So  when  upon  trial  a  man  is  acquitted  because  he  is 
found  righteous  ;  first  he  is  judged  and  esteemed  right- 
eous, and  then  dealt  with  as  a  righteous  person,  his 
righteousness  is  imputed  to  him."     Justification,  p.  148. 


tMPUtATIOtf.  109 

So  Adam  in  the  case  before  us.  His  conduct  is  com- 
pared with  the  law  under  which  he  Was  placed :  it  is 
perceived  to  disagree ;  unrighteousness  is  seen  to  be  in 
him  :  and  accordingly  he  is  thought  to  be — he  is  esteem- 
ed, unrighteous  :  his  unrighteousness  or  sin  is  imputed 
to  him. 

The  term  is  applied  to  express  the  keeping  of  pecuniary 
accounts  ;  wherein  there  is  a  debtor  and  a  creditor. — 
Some  things  are  set  down  against,  and  some  in  favor  of 
the  person  ;  these  are  compared  together,  and  as  the 
agreement  or  excess  is,  so  is  the  balance  a  debt  or  a  cred- 
it. 2.  Kin.  xii.  15,  "  Moreover  they  reckoned  not  with 
the  men  into  whose  hands  they  delivered  the  money  to 
be  bestowed  on  the  workmen ;  for  they  dealt  faithfully." 
And  xxii.  7 — "there  was  no  reckoning  made  with  them." 
Here  they  kept  no  reckoning,  no  account  of  receipts 
and  expenditures.  Lev.  xxv.  50,  "And  he  shall  reckon 
with  him  that  bought  him,  from  the  year  that  he  was 
sold  to  him,  unto  the  year  of  jubilee  :  and  the  price  of 
his  sale  shall  be  according  to  the  number  of  years." — 
And  xxvii.  18, — "then  the  priest  shall  reckon  unto  him 
the  money,  according  to  the  years  that  remain."  He 
shall  adjust  the  account  and  strike  an  equable  balance. 
Here  again,  we  have  the  process  of  comparing  the  things 
together  and  marking  their  agreement  or  difference.  It 
is  the  plain  and  simple  operation  which  a  judge  per- 
forms in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duty.  He  sets 
down,  all  the  items  presented  against  the  person  to  be 
judged.  He  marks  his  entire  conduct:  compares  it 
with  the  law's  prescription  and  declares  the  difference 
or  agreement,  and  holds  him  to  the  legal  consequences. 
This  process  is  imputation:  and  the  imputation  is  just 
only  when  these  items  really  belong  to  the  individual. 
Should  the  Judge  put  down,  for,  or  against  a  man,  any 
thing  that  was  not  really  and  truly  his,  it  would  be  an 
unjust  imputation  ;  and  judgment  founded  upon  it  would 
not  be  according  to  truth.  The  thing  imputed  must,  as 
Owen  says,  be  "  really  and  truly  ours,  or  in  us."  Adam 
must  have  actually  sinned,  he  must  have  stood  to  the 
law  in  the  relation  of  a  sinner,  or  sin  could  not  be  im- 
puted or  set  down  against  him.  But  he  did  eat  the  fruit 
10 


110  IMPUTATION. 

and  his  sin  is  imputed  to  him  :  and  he  is  held  to  its  just 
consequences. 

You  will  observe  then,  that  a  man's  own  acts  are  im- 
puted to  him,  and  because  they  are  his  own.  So  Lev. 
xvii.  4, — "blood  shall  be  imputed  unto  that  man,  he 
hath  shed  blood"  If  he  had  not  shed  it,  it  would  not 
have  been  set  down  against  him.  So  the  person  who 
improperly  sacrifices,  "  it  shall  not  be  accepted,  neither 
shall  it  be  imputed  [set  down  to  his  benefit]  to  him  that 
offereth  it;" — Lev.  vii.  18.  In  like  manner  Shimei 
2  Sam.  xix.  19)  "said  unto  the  king,  Let  not  my  Lord 
impute  iniquity  to  me,  neither  do  thou  remember  what 
thy  servant  did  perversely."  He  acknowldges  his  offence 
and  it  was  impossible  the  king  should  not  think  that 
Shimei  had  committed  the  offence.  What  did  the  of- 
fender desire  ?  Simply  that  the  king  would  not  so  set 
it  down  against  him,  as  to  hold  him  responsible  for  it 
— to  fasten  upon  him  the  just  and  lawful  consequences 
— the  punishment  deserved.  It  is  perhaps  impossible 
to  find  a  plainer  illustration  of  the  force  and'meaning  of 
imputation,  than  we  have  here.  This  man  had  com- 
pared his  own  conduct,  in  cursing  David  and  casting 
stones,  with  the  law,  by  which  he  was  bound  to  obey 
the  king1,  whom  God  and  the  people  had  placed  over 
him.  He  saw  the  disagreement,  and  knew  the  king  saw 
it  too.  His  eye  glanced  at  the  just  consequences,  and 
to  avert  it,  he  makes  suit  to  his  restored  monarch.  The 
precise  object  of  his  anxious  desire,  is,  that  the  punish- 
ment he  deserved  might  not  be  inflicted — that  the  king 
would  not  hold  him  to  the  legal  and  penal  results  of  his 
own  acts.  To  impute  a  man's  iniquity  to  him,  is  there- 
fore, nothing  more  or  less,  than  to  set  it  to  his  account 
and  to  hold  him  liable  to  punishment  for  it.  Can  any 
man  suppose  that  Shimei  wished  the  king  to  believe  that 
he  did  not  curse  him  and  caststones  ?  Why  does  he  con- 
fess it?  The  thing  is  utterly  absurd.  It  was  no  part 
of  his  expectation  to  make  the  king  believe  that  the  of- 
fensive acts  were  not  his.  But  now,  if  the  imputation  of 
righteousness  means,  that  the  righteous  acts  of  one  man 
become  the  personal  acts  of  another  man — or  if  the  im- 
putation of  one  man's  sin  to  another,  means  that  the  sin- 


IMPUTATION.  1  1  I 

ful  acts  of  the  one  person  become  the  sinful  acts  of  the 
other  person,  then  the  non-imputation  of  Shimei's  in- 
iquity must  mean,  that  he  did  not  do  the  acts — that  in 
not  imputing  them,   the  king  should  really  believe  he 
never  did  perform  them  !     On  the  contrary,  if  the  impu- 
tation of  iniquity  is  simply  the  seting  of  it  down  and  the 
holding  of  a  person  responsible  for  its  legal  consequences; 
viz,  its  just  punishment;  so   the  imputation  of  right- 
eousness, is — not  the  thinking  that  the   person   did  the 
act ;  but  the  setting  of  it  to  his  account,  the  holding  of 
him  liable  to  its  legal  consequences  ;  viz,  its  just  reward. 
Thus  "Phinehas  stood  up  and  executed  judgement :  and 
so  the  plague  was  stayed :  and  that  was  counted  [im- 
puted^ unto  him  for  righteousness." — Psa.  cvi.  30,  31. 
God  viewed  the  act  of  Phinehas  ;  compared  it  with  the 
holy  law  ;  found  it  agreeing  therewith  ;  set  it  down  to 
his  account;  and  held  him  to  its  just  consequences  ;  viz: 
he  rewarded  him.     "  The  righteousness  of  the  righteous 
shall  be  upon  him."     There   are  therefore,  as  before 
stated  from  Owen,  these  two  things  always  in  the  act  of 
imputation,  viz,    1,  The  perception  and  accounting  of 
the  thing  imputed,  as  belonging  to  the  person  to  whom 
it  is  imputed ;  and  2.  The  determination  to  give  to  him 
the  just  and  legal  consequences  of  it.     The  commenda- 
ble act  of  administering  summary  justice  in   the  case, 
is  seen  and  accounted  as  belonging  to  Phinehas.     The 
act  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  is  seen  and  accounted 
as  belonging  to  Adam.     This  is   the  first  part  of  impu- 
tation.    The  purpose  or  determination  is  conceived,  to 
give  to  Phinehas  the  just  and  lawful  results  of  his  act,  a 
suitable  benefit  or  reward.     The  purpose  of  letting  the 
just  and  legal  effects  of  his  act  fall  upon  Adam  is  enter- 
tained— he  shall  be  punished.     This  is  the  second  part 
of  imputation.     The  absence  of  either  of  these  will  de- 
stroy the  true  idea  of  imputation.     To  view  and  account 
any  act  or  thing  as  belonging  to  an  individual,  where  it 
is  not,  is  plainly  to  violate  the  law  of  truth  :   and  to  fol- 
low that  up  with  the  legal  consequences,  is  plainly  to 
violate  justice.     To  account  truly  an  act  as  belonging  to 
a  person  and  yet  not  to  append  to  that  act  its  rightful  re- 
sults, is  equally  to  sin  against  the  laws  of  justice.     But 


1 12  CONDEMNATION. 

when  both  exist — when,  upon  an  inspection  of  the  case, 
it  is  seen,  that  Adam  did  the  act — it  is  his  ;  truth  is 
maintained  in  this  part  of  the  imputation :  and  when  the 
purpose  is  entertained  to  let  things  be  connected  in  fact, 
which  are  connected  in  law  ;  viz  :  the  sinful  action  and 
its  punishment,  justice  is  upheld. 

Thus  far  imputation,  both  as  to  the  term  and  the 
thing,  in  its  primary  application  ;  that  is,  its  applica- 
tion to  individuals  and  their  own  personal  acts.  We 
reserve  its  application  to  other  cases  for  another  chapter. 

SECTION  IV. 
Of  Condemnation. 

The  action  of  declaring  the  legal  consequences  of  im- 
puting to  Adam  his  own  sin  is  Condemnation. 

In  defining  the  term  Justification,  we  had  occasion  to 
see,  that  it  stands  in  contrast  with  condemnation.  That 
describes  the  act  of  a  judge  in  passing  a  sentence  in  fa- 
vour ;  this,  the  act  of  passing  a  sentence  against  a  person. 
Now  before  either  can  righteously  occur,  the  operation 
covered  by  the  term  imputation,  must  take  place ;  and 
the  parts  of  it  be  conducted  respectively  under  the  au- 
spicious administration  of  truth  and  justice.  For  no 
man  can  be  justly  and  truly  condemned,  until  an  un- 
lawful act  shall  have  been  truly  charged  to  him,  until 
the  determination  be  passed,  that  its  legal  consequences 
shall  be  connected  with  him.  The  former  of  these  oc- 
curred in  the  case  of  Shimei.  King  David  charged  him 
with  the  crime.  The  latter  did  not  take  place  ;  for  the 
King,  being  sovereign,  as  well  as  judge,  determined,  not 
to  allow  the  law  here  to  do  its  full  execution.  Had 
Abishai  killed  Shimei,  he  would  have  been  guilty  of 
murder.  The  sovereign  interposed  and  averted  the 
tongue  of  the  judge,  and,  of  cource,  the  sword  of  the  ex- 
ecutioner. The  judge  did  not  pass  a  sentence  of  con* 
demnation  and  the  executioner  dared  not  strike  the  vic- 
tim of  justice.  In  the  case  of  Adam,  both  parts  of  impu- 
tation occurred.  His  act  is  charged  upon  him  and  the 
purpose  is  conceived  and  entertained  of  treating  him  ao* 


GUILT.  1  13 

eordingly.  Here  you  have  the  full  idea  of  imputation. 
But  you  have  more  than  this.  The  purpose  to  let  the 
act  be  followed  by  its  just  consequence  is  also  expressed. 
*'  Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake — dust  thou  art  and 
unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  Now  this  expression  is 
condemnation.  This  is  the  last  act  of  the  judge  directly 
toward  the  individual  offender.  It  only  remains  for  him 
to  turn  the  executioner  and  bid  him  rto  do  his  duty. 
Such  was  the  unhappy  condition  of  the  parent  of  the 
human  race.  He  had  acted  c  ntrary  to  law.  The 
judge  had  compared  his  conduct  with  the  law,  and  mark- 
ed their  contrariety.  He  had  entertained  the  purpose 
to  deal  with  him  according  to  his  deeds — had  imputed 
to  him  his  sin.  He  had  declared  this  purpose — had 
condemned  him.     Adam  therefore  is  guilty  of  death. 

SECTION  V. 
Of  Guilt. 

Let  us  settle  the  meaning  of  this  term.  This  is  the 
more  necessary,  because  its  theological  sense  is  differ- 
ent ;  in  some  degree  from  the  sense  in  which  it  is  often 
taken  in  common  conversation.  We  use  it  simply  to 
describe  the  state  and  condition  of  a  person  who  has 
passed  under  the  law's  condemnatory  sentence.  It  is 
generally  true,  that  he  is  deserving  of  punishment:  but 
this  idea  is  expressed  in  a^hej  terms  ;  and  guilt  implies 
simply,  the  persons  exposed  to  punishment,  because  the 
law  has  pronounced  upon  him  its  sentence  of  condem- 
nation. 

In  theological  discussions  we  ought  to  adhere  to  scrip- 
ture usage,  in  the  meaning  of  terms  which  are  used  in 
t ! i e  Bible  :  and  generally,  where  words  are  used  often  iD 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  the  usage  of  the 
former  ought  to  govern :  just  as  the  meaning  of  a  word 
in  the  English  Bible,  is  never  to  be  settled  by  a  refer- 
ence to  English  authorities,  but  to  the  original  scriptures. 
Let  us  therefore  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament.  And 
here  we  find  the  term  guilty  used  as  a  translation  for  a 
single  Hebrew  word,  but  seventeen  times.  One  of  these 
10* 


114  GUILT. 

occurs  in  Numbers  xxxv.  31.  "Ye  shall  take  no  sat- 
isfaction for  the  life  of  a  murderer,  which  is  guilty  of 
death  ;  but  he  shall  be  surely  put  to  death."  Here  the 
word  rendered  guilty  (Kashang)  means  ill  desert,  and 
this  is  the  only  instance  where  the  word  is  so  translated. 
In  the  other  sixteen,  cases,  the  Hebrew  word  (asham) 
signifies  simply  obligation — or  liability  to  the  penal 
claims  of  law.  Of  these  sixteen  it  is  used  (Lev.  iv.  13, 
22,  27,  and  v.  2,  3,  4,  5,  17.)  eight  times  in  reference 
to  the  sins  of  ignorance,  whereby  ceremonial  guilt  is 
contracted.  In  Lev.  vi.  4,  it  is  applied  to  sins  of  moral 
turpitude  knowingly  committed,  such  as  lying,  decep- 
tion, false  swearing.  But  a  careful  inspection  will  shew 
that  in  every  case  the  sin  and  the  guilt  are  distinguish- 
ed from  each  other.  "  If  the  whole  congregation  of  Is- 
rael sin  through  ignorance — and  are  guilty."  "  When 
a  ruler  hath  sinned  and  done  somewhat  through  igno- 
rance— and  is  guilty."  "If  any  one  of  the  common 
people  sin  through  ignorance — and  be  guilty."  Here 
it  is  manifest  the  term  sin,  expresses  the  wrong-doing, 
and  the  term  guilty  expresses  the  liability  to  penal  con- 
sequences :  and  accordingly,  the  law  proceeds  to  affirm 
the  ceremonial  penalty.  In  Gen.  xlii.  21,  Joseph's 
brethren  "  said  one  to  another,  we  are  verily  guilty 
concerning  our  brother — therefore  is  this  distress  come 
upon  us."  They  felt  some  of  the  penal  evils  of  their 
sin  and  confessed  their  liability  to  suffer- — their  obli- 
gation to  penalty.  In  Judges  xxi.  1,  the  people  had 
sworn  "  There  shall  not  any  of  us  give  his  daughter  un- 
to Benjamin  to  wife,"  but  relenting  afterwards,  some  of 
their  leaders  laid  the  plot  to  let  the  Benjamites  steal  their 
daughters,  and  should  the  parents  complain,  they  pri^ 
vately  assured  the  Benjamites,  they  would  not  be  rigid 
in  holding  them  to  punishment  for  violating  their  oath— m 
"  we  will  say  unto  them — ye  did  not  give  unto  them  at 
this  time,  that  ye  should  be  guilty ,"  That  is — thai 
your  oath  should  bind  you  to  its  punishment.  Those 
who  had  married  strange  wives,  Ezra  x.  19,  "  put  away 
their  wives  and  being  guilty" — obnoxious  to  penal  evil 
•— - fhey  offered  a  suitable  atonement.  Pro.  xxx.  10, 
"  Accuse  not  a  servant  unto  his  master,  lest  he  curse 


GUILT.  115 

thee,  and  thou  be  found  guilty'''' — liable  to  suffer.  Ezek. 
xxii.  4.  "Thou  art  become  guilty  in  the  blood  which 
thou  has  shed." — Here  again  the  wrong-doing,  is  distin- 
guished from  the  exposure  to  penal  suffering  on  account 
of  it.  Zech.  xi.  4,  5,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  my  God; 
feed  the  flock  of  the  slaughter ;  whose  possessors  slay 
them,  and  hold  themselves  not  guilty:" — not  liable  to 
punishment,  because  the  laws  are  prostrated  and  unable 
to  execute  just  vengeance. 

The  term  occurs  once  as  a  noun.  Gen.  xxvi.  10. 
Abimelech  complains  that  Isaac's  conduct  might  have 
brought  guiltiness  upon  us" — exposed  us  to  penal  evils 
as  did  Abraham's  on  a  former  occasion. 

Dr.  Owen,  after  a  very  clear  statement  of  the  case, 
says,  "  Guilt  in  the  scripture,  is  the  respect  of  sin  unto 
the  sanction  of  the  law,  whereby  the  sinner  becomes  ob- 
noxious unto  punishment.  And  to  be  guilty  is  to  be 
vrc68vxo$  ty  £ew,  liable  unto  punishment  for  sin,  from  God, 
as  the  supreme  law-giver  and  judge  of  all."  Justi.  178. 

On  this  point,  the  Princeton  Repertory,  vol.  2.  440, 
quotes  Owen,  and  Grotius,  and  Edwards,  and  Ridgeley, 
and  quotations  might  be  greatly  extended  ;  but  the  Bible 
is  the  best  authority.  Such  is  the  Bible  meaning,  and 
ought  to  be  the  theological  meaning  of  the  term  guilt. 

In  closing  for  the  present  let  us  remark. 

1.  God's  imputations  are  according  to  both  truth  and 
righteousness.  If  you  sin,  be  sure  your  sin  will  find 
you  out.  God  will  reckon  it  to  you  and  hold  you  respon- 
sible for  its  legal  consequences.  Men  indeed  may, 
through  want  of  knowledge,  not  impute  your  offences  to 
you  ;  or  imputing  them,  may,  through  want  of  regard  to 
righteousness,  refuse  or  neglect  to  hold  you  responsible  ; 
but  not  so  God — "  Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the'earth 
do  right."  And  if  he  will  impute  iniquity,  who  can 
stand  before  him  ? 

2.  The  annunciation,  by  due  authority,  of  the  act  of 
imputation,  is  a  condemnatory  sentence.  And  this  fol- 
lows the  other,  in  every  righteous  government,  by  an 
inevitable  moral  necessity.  It  is  not  a  moral  possibility 
to  withhold  the  declaration,  when  the  facts  exist.  It 
would  be  to  connive  at  sin,  and  become  partaker  in  its 


116  IMPUTATION. 

iniquity.     Condemnation  must  therefore  pass  upon  every 
sinner. 

3.  How  mournful  the  fact  before  us  !  The  great  pro- 
genitor of  the  human  race,  a  condemned  malefactor,  at 
the  bar  of  his  Maker!  A  little  time  previously,  high  in 
favour  with  God — holding  familiar  intercourse  with  him 
as  a  man  converseth  with  his  friend — now  alas,  fallen — 
degraded — condemned  !  How  is  the  gold  become  dim  ! 
How  is  the  most  fine  gold  changed  ! 

4.  Mark,  once  more,  the  intimate  connexion  between 
religion  and  that  moral  government  which  constitutes 
civil  society.  Their  principles  are  identical.  Their 
doctrines  are  the  same.  A  truly  religious  man,  who  be- 
lieve the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  must  necessarily  be  a 
good  member  of  society — a  good  citizen — a  patriot — a 
lover  of  his  country,  and  of  mankind. 

SECTION  VI. 

"  The  sin  of  Mam  is  rightfully  imputed  to  his 
posterity.''' 

This  language  I  have  borrowed  from  Stapferus, 
through  Edwards,  who  quotes  it  with  approbation  vol. 
it.  545 ;  because  it  accurately  expresses  the  next  topic  of 
our  discussion.  To  evince  its  truth,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  recall  and  apply  some  of  the  first  principles  of  morals 
already  settled.  We  must  ever  bear  in  mind,  that  our 
discussion  is  upon  a  question  of  legal  relations — a  ques- 
tion of  right. 

And  one  of  the  truths  most  important  in  this  case,  is, 
that  every  moral  head,  or  federal  representative,  binds, 
by  his  action,  the  moral  body  of  which  he  is  the  head — 
the  persons  whom  he  represents.  The  destinies  of  the 
head  and  body  are  the  same.  They  are  a  moral  unity. 
Whatever  be  the  number  of  persons  represented,  wheth- 
er ten,  or  ten  million  times  ten  millions,  it  is  the  same  ; 
the  act  of  the  one  is  the  act  of  the  whole.  I  trust  we 
have  settled  this  principle.  We  have  seen,  that  either  it 
is  true,  or  there  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  moral  govern- 
ment in  the  universe,  nor  human  society  in  this  world. 


IMPUTATION.  117 

We  have  also  enquired  into  the  matter  of  fact  and 
found  it  so  to  be,  that  Adam  was  appointed  of  God,  head 
of  the  whole  human  race — a  representative,  who  acted 
for  all  human  persons.  There  existed  a  moral  unity. 
"  I  think,"  says  Edwards  n.  542,  "it  would  go  far  to- 
wards directing  to  the  more  clear  conception  and  right 
statement  of  this  affair,  were  we  steadily  to  bear  this  in 
mind :  That  God,  in  every  step  of  his  proceeding  with 
Adam,  in  relation  to  the  covenant  or  constitution  estab- 
lished with  him,  looked  on  his  posterity  as  being  one 
with  him.  And  though  he  dealt  more  immediately  with 
Adam,  it  yet  was  as  the  head  of  the  whole  body,  and  the 
root  of  the  whole  tree  ;  and  in  his  proceedings  with  him, 
he  dealt  with  all  the  branches,  as  if  they  had  been  then 
existing  in  their  root." 

"  From  which  it  will  follow,  that  both  guilt,  or  expos- 
edness  to  punishment,  and  also  depravity  of  heart,  came 
upon  Adam's  posterity,  just  as  they  came  upon  him — " 
"  I  think  this  will  naturally  follow  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  there  being  a  constituted  oneness  or  identity  of 
Adam  and  his  posterity  in  this  affair." 

"  The  guilt  a  man  has  upon  his  soul  at  first  ex- 
istence, is  one  and  simple,  viz :  the  guilt  of  the  original 
apostacy,  the  guilt  of  the  sin  by  which  the  species  first 
rebelled  against  God." 

If  the  fact  be  so — if  Adam  did  represent — did  act  for 
his  people,  then  they  acted  through  him  and  by  him, 
just  as  we  republicans  act  through  and  by  our  represen- 
tatives in  Congress.  Consequently,  his  act  is  as  right- 
fully imputed  to  us  as  it  is  imputed  to  him.  Why  is  it 
rightfully  imputed  to  Adam  ?  Because  it  is  his,  and  in 
accounting  it  his,  God  sustains  truth  :  and  in  purposing  to 
deal  with  him  accordingly,  and  holding  him  responsible 
for  its  legal  consequences,  he  acts  according  to  justice. 
Why  is  it  rightly  imputed  to  his  posterity?  Because  it 
is  theirs — not  indeed  personally,  but  morally,  legally — . 
just  as  the  acts  of  every  agent  or  representative,  are  the 
acts  of  his  principle,  and  binds  him  : — and^vhen  God  ac- 
counts it  theirs,  he  sustains  truth,  and  when  he'  holds 
them  to  the  legal  consequences,  he  sustains  justice. 

The  first  words  of  Edward's  treatise  on  original  sin, 


118  IMPUTATION". 

are  these,  viz:  "By  Original  Sin.  as  the  phrase  has 
been  most  commonly  used  by  divines,  is  meant  the  in- 
nate sinful  depravity  of  the  heart.  But  yet  when  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin  is  spoken  of.  it  is  vulgarly  un- 
derstood in  that  latitude,  which  includes  not  only  the 
depravity  of  nature,  but  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first 
sin  :  or.  in  other  words,  the  liableness  or  exposedness 
im's  posterity,  in  the  divine  judgement,  to  partake 
of  the  punishment  of  that  sin.  So  far  as  I  know,  m 
of  those  who  have  held  one  of  these,  have  maintained 
the  other ;  and  most  of  those  who  have  opposed  one, 
have  opposed  the  other:"   n.  310. 

This  extract  gives  us  the  true  definition  of  guilt  :  it 
is  the  liable.  -  r  exposedness  of  Adam's  posterity,  in 
the  divine  judgement,  to  partake  of  punishment;  and 
the  rendering  of  this  sentence,  is  imputation  :  whereby 
his  posterity  is  exposed  to  punishment  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin. 

1st  Having  thus  [recalled  the  first  principles  from 
which  the  result  follows,  and  presented  anew  the  dis- 
tinct idea  of  imputation,  let  us  open  the  sacred  volume 
and  see  whether  cases  do  exist,  wherein  the  acts  of  one 
person  are  reputed  inlaw,  the  acts  of  another — are  im- 
puted to  another — i.  e.  are  so  accounted  to  another,  that 
he  is  held  responsible  in  law  for  them — i.  e.  is  guilty — 
is  liable  to  the  legal  consequences.  A  few  cases  only 
may  be  cited. 

1.  The  league,  covenant  or  treaty,  which  Joshua 
made  with  the  ambassadors  of  the  Gibeonites.  is  a  case 
in  point:  Joshua  ix.  Here  was  a  covenant  entered  into 
by  the  ambassadors  on  the  one  hand  ;  and  by  Joshua 
and  the  princes  of  Israel  on  the  other  hand.  But  nei- 
ther of  the  high  contracting  parties  acted  for  himself, 
simply.  They  all  felt  that  they  acted  for  their  nations 
-ly  :  and  although  there  was  deception  on  one 
sid  because  the  league  was  confirmed  by  an  oath  : 

it  was  held  to  be  binding,  not  upon  the  ambassadors 
and  representatives  simplv,  but  upon  the  nations,  whom 
they  represented  :  and  that  even  tho'  the  people  of  Israel 
mannered  much  against  it.  Here  is  a  clear  case,  where- 
in the  act  of  one  set  of  men  passes  over  and  binds  others. 


IMPUTATION.  119 

And  why  ?  simply,  because  it  was  their  act,  performed 
by  them  in  their  representatives.  And  thus  it  is  with  all 
treaties  between  nations. 

2.  In  like  manner,  in  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  to  which 
we  have  already  had  reference,  not  the  persons  who 
were  present,  and  they  alone  were  bound  by  the  act — 
but  it  extended  over  the  nation  and  bound  them  all,  even 
until  the  days  of  Messiah's  flesh.  De  t.  v.  3.  On  the 
same  principle,  the  sin  of  David  in  numbering  Israel, 
was  a  national  sin — it  was  committed  by  the  head  of 
the  nation  and  the  nation  was  held  liable  to  its  conse- 
quences and  suffered  grievously. 

3.  So,  the  whole  business  of  suretyship,  rests  on  the 
same  foundation.  A  man  voluntarily  becomes  responsi- 
ble, for  his  friend ;  so  that  in  case  of  his  failure,  his  acts 
in  contracting  a  debt  comes  upon  him  as  surety,  he  is 
bound  in  law  to  make  it  good.  "  Be  not.  one  of  them 
that  strike  hands,  or  of  them  that  are  sureties  for  debts. 
If  thou  hast  nothing  to  pay,  why  should  he  take  away 
the  bed  from  under  thee."  Pov.  22,  26.  Thus  "  Jesus 
was  made  surety  of  a  better  testament,"  Heb.  7,  22. 
and  the  responsibilities  of  those,  for  whom  he  was'surety, 
lay  upon  him — he  was  bound,  just  as  his  people  were 
bound.  This  suggests  a  4th  Instance — viz  :  that  of 
Paul,  when  he  assumed  the  debt  of  Onesimus.  Phile- 
mon's servant  had  run  off  from  his  master  and  perhaps 
purloined  his  goods  or  money  ;  he  fell  in  with  Paul  and 
heard  the 'gospels  of  his  salvation  ;  it  was  blessed  to  him 
and  Onesimus  became  a  good  man  ;  Paul  sent  him  back 
to  his  master,  though  he  had  a  desire  to  retain  him  to 
wait  upon  himself,  "But  without  thy  mind,  would  I  do 
nothing."  In  sending  back  this  runaway  servant,  Paul 
tells  the  master,  "If  he  have  wronged  thee  or  oweth  thee 
ought,  put  that  on  mine  account;  I,  Paul,  have  written 
it  with  mine  own  hand,  I  will  repay  it."  Philem.  18, 
19.  The  word  translated  "  put  that  on  mine  account" 
is  the  same  as  found  in  Rom.  v.  13.  "  sin  is  not  impu- 
ted where  there  is  no  law."  "  Put  that  on  mine  ac- 
count" charge  it — impute  it  to  me. 

Here  is  the  principle  for  which  we  contend.     Wheth- 
er  the   imputation  of  it  to   Paul   ever  took  place,   we 


120  IMUPTATION* 

know  not ;  nor  is  it  a  matter  of  any  consequence.  The 
apostle  recognises  the  correctness  of  the  principle.  The 
acts  of  Onesimus  in  becoming  indebted,  pass  over  as  to 
their  legal  and  binding  effects — not  as  to  their  moral 
character,  this  is  absurd  and  impossible  ;  but  as  to  their 
legal  obligation.  If  Philemon  accepts  the  surety  and 
transfers  the  debt  to  Paul,  then  is  Onesimus  set  free. 
If  he  merely  agrees  to  hold  Paul  responsible,  in  case 
Onesimus  fail  of  payment,  he  holds  both  responsible. 
The  imputation  consists  precisely  in  his  holding  Paul 
bound  in  law  to  pay  the  debt.  And  it  is  only  necessary 
farther  to  observe,  that  the  imputation  here,  as  always, 
rests  upon  the  previous  moral  union  of  the  persons. 
Had  Philemon,  without  any  evidence  of  Paul's  connex- 
ion with  Onesimus,  put  his  debt  down  to  Paul's  ac- 
count, it  would  have  been  an  unjust  imputation  and  he 
could  not  have  vindicated  it  in  law.  Hence  the  particu- 
larity with  which  the  apostle  specifies  his  signature : 
this  is  the  legal  evidence  of  his  consent. 

2d.  Here  we  meet  an  objection  against  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  :  it  is  maintained  by  the 
entire  Pelagian  interest,  that  the  sons  of  Adam  are  in- 
deed responsible  and  do  become  guilty  of  his  sin,  so 
soon  as  they  by  actual,  personal  sin  consent  to  Adam's 
deed,  but  not  before.  Hence  the  same  parties  deny, 
that  original  sin  of  itself  condemns  any  one.  It  does 
not  attach  until  after  actual  sin.  A  surety  is  not  bound, 
say  they,  until  he  consents.  To  impute  a  debt  to  a 
man  and  hold  him  to  payment,  who  has  not  given  his 
personal  consent  to  it,  would  be  unjust;  neither  would 
it  be  just  to  charge  the  sin  of  Adam  upon  his  innocent 
posterity.  On  this  we  remark,  1.  To  charge  sin  upon 
the  innocent,  would  indeed  be  iniquity  :  but  the  ques- 
tion in  controversy  is,  whether  Adam's  posterity  are 
innocent — whether  they  are  not  justly  under  condem- 
nation because  of  his  sin ;  and  this  question  depends 
manifestly  upon  the  previous  question,  whether  they 
acted  in  and  through  him — were  they  represented  by 
him  ?  If  they  were,  then  his  act  was  legally  their  act ; 
for  he  acted  for  them.  2.  As  to  consent  being  neces- 
sary to  create    a  moral  union ;  the  principle  is  sound 


IMPUTATION.  121 

and  true,   but  it  has  its  limits  and  its  exceptions.     The 
consent  of  every  individual  person  in    a  nation  is  not 
necessary  to  give  validity   to  a  treaty  or  a  law,  and  yet 
they   are  all  bound  by  it.     The  consent  of  Adam  was 
not  necessary  as  a  pre-requisite  to  his  creation  ;  or  to  his 
being  placed   under  the   law   of  God.     True,   he    did 
consent  to  obey  God;    but  I  deny  that  the   obligation 
is   based  on  the  consent.     For  if  consent  here  was  the 
basis    of    obligation,    who    shall    say    that    the    with- 
drawal of  consent,    does  not  put  an  end  to  obligation  ? 
On  the  contrary,  the  obligation  to  obey  God  is  natural 
and  necessary   and  can   never  cease,  as   we  have  seen 
and  therefore    Adam    could  not    withhold  his    consent 
without  violating  his   obligation.     No   man's  consent  is 
now  asked  whether  he  will  or  will  not  be  bound  by  the 
laws  of  God  or  his   country.     Every  man  is  so  bound, 
whether  he  consent  or  not.    No  man's  consent  is  asked, 
whether  he  will  or  will  not  be  a  son  of  Adam  either  in  a 
physical  or  a  moral  sense.     God  has  made  every  man  so, 
and  it  would  be  no  greater  absurdity  to  maintain  the  de- 
pendence of  the  physical  relation  upon  the  individual's 
own  consent,  than  of  the  moral.     The   infant  orphan's 
consent  is  not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  his  guardian's 
appointment  and  the  legality  of  his  acts.     We  are  there- 
fore thrown  back  upon  the  mere  question  of  fact ;  did 
God  appoint  Adam  the  representative  head  of  his  race  ? 
On  this  simply,  depends  the  question  of  the  imputation 
of  his  sin  to  them.     If  God  did  constitute  them  a  moral 
unity,  the  question  is  settled :  he  sinned,  and  the  guilt  of 
this  sin  is  imputed  :  they  are  held  liable  to  its  penal  con- 
sequences— that  is  death. 

3,  This  argument  thus  far,  is  what  logicians  term  a 
priori;  that  is,  an  argument  from  first  principles,  or 
principles  proved  to  be  true,  to  their  results.  Having 
seen  reasons  to  believe,  that  God  entered  into  covenant 
with  Adam,  in  which  he  appointed  him  the  representa- 
tive head  of  his  posterity,  we  are  thus  shut  up  to  the 
doctrine,  that  his  sin  is  imputed  to  them — they  are  liable 
to  its  penal  consequences.  Let  us  now  reverse  the  op- 
eration and  reason  a  posteriori ;  that  is,  backward,  from 
effects,  to  their  causes — from  the  ruin  in  which  we  find 
II 


122  IMPUTATION. 

man  actually  involved,  to  the  moral  causes  of  that  ruin. 
And, 

1.  There  is  here  a  resumption  of  a  truth  already  re- 
cognised, viz  :  that  human  sufferings  have  their  origin 
in  human  sins — that  all  the  sorrows  that  flesh  is  heir  to, 
are  consequent  upon  dereliction  of  principle — that  phys- 
ical evils  are  connected  with  moral  evils.  The  mind  refus- 
es to  believe  that  a  world  of  sorrows  can  be  disconnected 
from  a  world  of  sins.  The  belief  in  a  wise,  holy,  just, 
and  good  Being,  who  rules  in  the  heavens  above,  and  in 
the  earth  beneath  :  who  regulates  and  governs  the  plan- 
ets in  their  ceaseless  round,  and  superintends  all  human 
affairs,  so  that  an  hair  cannot  fall  from  our  head,  without 
his  will — the  belief  in  such  a  Being-,  seems  to  involve 
the  idea  that  suffering  results  from  sin.  "  Shall  not  the 
Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?"  "'Hath  there  been 
evil  in  the  city,  and  the  Lord  hath  not  done  it  7."  "Wilt 
thou  slay  the  righteous  with  the  wicked  ?"  We  set  it 
down  then  as  a  moral  axiom,  that  pain  and  anguish,  dis- 
traction and  turmoil,  sickness  and  death,  can  exist  under 
the  government  of  a  benevolent  and  righteous  God,  only 
as  the  just  and  necessary  consequents  of  moral  evil. 

2.  But  that  such  do  exist  in  our  own  world,  is  as  evi- 
dent as  that  the  world  itself  exists.  "We  can  no  more 
disbelieve  the  reality  of  our  own  being,  and  that  of  the 
earth,  and  the  fullness  thereof,  than  we  can  disbelieve 
the  general  prevalence  of  pain,  and  sickness,  and  death. 
Man  is  born  to  trouble  as  the  sparks  do  ascend.  Few 
and  evil  have  been  the  days  of  the  vears  of  my  life.  No 
man  needs  proof  of  the  fact,  that  earth  has  its  sorrows, 
deep  seated,  and  incurable  by  earthly  means. 

3.  Hence  the  unavoidable  inference,  that  earth  has  its 
sins.  Man  has  violated  the  divine  law,  and  hence  the 
evils  incident  to  his  condition.  These  are  simply  a  par- 
tial expression  of  God's  displeasure  against  him  for  his 
transgressions. 

This  is  a  plain  and  simple  and  satisfactorv  way  of  ac- 
counting for  the  miseries  of  our  own  world;  and  in  this 
there  is  a  very  general  agreement.  It  seems  to  com- 
mend itself  to  the  common  sense  of  all  men.  The  bar- 
barous people  of  Melita,   reasoned  thus  when   they  saw 


IMPUTATION.  123 

the  venomous  beast  fasten  on  Paul's  hand.  "  No  doubt, 
said  they,  this  man  is  a  murderer,  whom,  though  he 
hath  escaped  the  sea,  yet  vengeance  sufFereth  not  to  live. 
This  connexion  between  suffering  and  sin,  we  have  seen, 
is  indispensable  in  a  righteous  government.  The  latter 
named,  must  always  be  antecedent  to  the  former,  in  point 
of  fact.  Here,  there  is  no  room  for  discussion  and 
scarcely  any  for  illustration.     But  again, 

4. 1  remark,  that  guilt  must  precede  punishment.  A  man 
must  be  condemned  before  he  can  be  rightfully  executed. 
The  law  must  pronounce  its  sentence,  before  the  officer 
can  proceed  to  take  vengeance.  Consequently,  in  a 
perfectly  righteous  government,  its  execution  is  evidence 
of  the  justice  of  a  sentence.  Now  such  a  government  is 
God's.  If  therefore,  men  suffer  under  it,  we  may  rest 
satisfied,  they  suffer  in  consequence  of  just  liability  to 
suffer.  God  does  injustice  to  no  man,  and  therefore  we 
infer,  that  all  suffering  men,  are  sinful  men — are  con- 
demned men — are  guilty  men. 

These  truths  are  so  plain  and  elementary — these  rea- 
sonings so  common  place,  that  we  can  scarcely  bear 
their  rehearsal.  Who  denies  them  ?  Who  is  ignorant  of 
them?  Who  needs  to  have  them  expanded,  illustrated, 
explained,  enforced,  in  order  to  his  reception  and  belief 
of  them  ?  It  is  with  difficulty  I  have  prevailed  on  my- 
self to  put  them  down  here,  even  thus  briefly.  And  yet 
they  are  momentous  truths  and  have  an  overpowering 
influence  in  the  discussion  of  this  doctrine.  Let  the 
reader  look  again  at  them.  Are  they  not  true  ?  May 
you  not  with  perfect  safety  commit  yourself  to  them ; 
and  abide  the  results  ? 

5.  We  conclude,  that,  inasmuch  as  all  men  do  suffer, 
all  men  were  condemned — are  guilty — are  justly  liable 
to  suffer.  From  this  conclusion  there  is  no  escape.  If, 
in  God's  moral  government,  suffering  is  consequent 
upon  guilt,  and  guilt  consequent  upon  sin,  then  wherever 
we  find  the  first,  we  must  believe  the  others  to  be  pres- 
ent, or  we  must  charge  God  foolishly.  The  universal 
prevalence  of  pain  and  sorrow,  and  anguish,  and  death, 
proves  either  the  universal  prevalence  of  sin,  and  guilt ; 
or  that  the  universal  Governor  is  not  a  regarder  of  justice. 


124  IMPUTATION. 

To  avoid  this  argument  from  closing  in  upon  them 
and  compelling  their  admission  of  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal sin,  some  reply,  that  the  universality  of  suffering 
must  be  referred  to  sin  indeed  ;  yet  to  no  sin  of  Adam  ; 
but  only  to  the  personal  sins  of  men.  Each  man  suffers 
for  his  own  acts  and  not  at  all  for  any  participation  of 
his  in  Adam's  first  transgression. 

In  view  of  this  we  admit,  it  is  true,  unquestionably, 
the  personal  acts  of  individuals,  are  sufficient  to  bring 
condemnation  and  death  upon  them. 

But  as  to  all  sufferings  which  precede  the  personal, 
sinful  acts  of  the  individual,  here  is  no  explanation  what- 
ever. We  have  settled  the  moral  principle,  that  sin  and 
guilt  must  precede  suffering.  How  then  account  for  all 
the  pains  and  sorrows  of  infancy?  What  personal  acts, 
bearing  a  moral  character,  of  the  new-born — vea  of  the 
unborn  babe,  are  these,  to  account  for  its  excruciating 
agonies  ?  Does  moral  agency  commence  prior  to  birth  ! 
Or  will  any  man  deny  all  connexion  between  the  suffer- 
ing of  infant  humanity,  and  a  pre-existent  moral  cause? 
Let  us  look  at  these  in  order  ;  for  strange  as  it  may  ap- 
pear to  you,  each  has  had  its  advocates. 

(1)  Unwilling  to  admit  the  pre-existent  sin  of  Adam 
and  the  infant's  participation  in  the  act  of  its  repre- 
sentative, as  accounting  for  its  agonies,  some  recent 
speculators  have  maintained,  that  infants  begin  to  sin 
personally,  before  birth,  and  being  actual  sinners,  their 
sufferings  are  thus  accounted  for  !  Well,  if  the  position 
could  be  maintained,  from  reason  and  scripture,  it  would 
indeed  invalidate  our  argument  from  effects  to  causes. 
Let  us  look  into  the  Bible  and  see  whether  it  throws  any 
light  upon  this  question  of  infants  sinning  before  they 
are  born.  "  When  Rebecca  also  had  conceived  by  one, 
even  by  our  father  Isaac,  (for  the  children  being  not  yet 
born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  pur- 
pose of  God  according  to  election  might  stand,  not  of 
works,  but  of  him  that  calleth)  it  was  said  unto  her,  the 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger."  Rom.  ix.  10 — 12. 
Here  is  unquestionably  a  difficult  passage  for  those  who 
maintain  the  doctrine  of  actual,  personal  sinning  before 
birth.     The  children  (and  that  just  before  birth)  had 


IMPUTATION.  125 

done  no  good  or  evil.  It  would  seem  that  Paul  did  not 
believe  in  this  aute-birth  actual  sin.  Moses,  Deut.  i.  39, 
speaks  of  the  children  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness, 
who  "in  that  day  had  no  knowledge  between  good  and 
evil."  Now,  that  the  good  and  evil  here,  could  be  na- 
tural good  and  evil,  is  hardly  credible,  for  the  new-born 
bade  desires  the  sincere  milk,  and  will  reject  nauceous 
drugs.  Undoubtedly,  the  common  meaning  attached  to 
the  words,  is  the  correct  one  :  viz.  that  their  little  babes 
could  not  distinguish  moral  good  and  evil — right  and 
wrong.  Now,  if  there  was  no  capacity  to  know  a  right 
and  a  wrong  in  actions,  there  could  be  no  right  or  wrong 
actions.     Actual  sin  is  impossible. 

And  this  is  in  accordance  with  the  general  sense  of 
mankind.  Infants  are  not  treated  as  moral  agents,  be- 
cause they  are  supposed  incapable  of  discerning  right 
and  wrong.  It  is  therefore  undeniable,  that  as  human 
persons,  they  do  not  sin,  and  cannot  sin,  either  imme- 
diately after,  or  before  birth.  If  they  commit  actual  sin 
before  they  see  the  light,  it  must  be  independently  of  the 
body,  and  how  far  this  is  different  from  the  doctrine  of 
transmigration  of  souls,  I  leave  its  friends  to  explain. 
Meanwhile,  we  rest  in  the  confidence,  that  no  actual  sin 
of  the  infant  exists,  prior  to  its  suffering,  as  the  moral 
cause  of  that  suffering.  This  christianized  figment  of 
pagan  mythology,  gives  no  substantial  aid  to  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  The  facts  remain 
unexplained  by  it.  Infants  do  suffer,  therefore  they  are 
guilty  :   sin  they  have  upon  them. 

5.  Secondly.  The  attempt  to  account  for  the  suffer- 
ings of  infants,  by  viewing  them  all  as  disciplinary  only, 
is  equally  unavailing.  The  advocates  of  this  allege,  that 
God  deals  with  infants  as  an  earthly  parent  does,  when 
he  chastises  his  children.  It  is  to  teach  them  virtue — to 
induce  them  to  shun  vice  :  a  system  of  discipline.  To 
this  we  reply,  that  it  is  a  virtual  denial  of  the  principle 
already  settled,  that  the  sufferings  of  moral  beings,  must 
have  their  cause  in  sin.  Or  if  it  is  not  a  rejection  of  this 
principle,  it  makes  the  effect  precede  its  cause.  Infants 
are  made  to  suffer,  in  the  government  of  God,  not  on 
account  of  sin  committed,  but  on  account  of  sin  to  be 
11* 


126  IMPUTATION. 

hereafter  committed  ;  or  rather,  on  account  of  sin,  the  per- 
petration of  which,  is  to  be  prevented  by  the  suffering. 
But  neither  of  these  is  practiced  by  any  wise  and  up- 
right parent.  What  father  chastises  an  unoffending 
child,  lest  he  may  hereafter  offend  ?  "What  government 
punishes  the  innocent,  lest  they  mightbecome  guilty  ? 
What  sound  philosopher-  puts  the  effect  before  the  eausej 
and  makes  the  effect,,  effectual  ih  preventing  the  'exis- 
tence of  that  which  caused  its  own  existence  I        ■'  * 

We  are  thrown  back  therefore  upon  the  sober  fact  of 
the  case.  Infants,  all  infants,  and  so  all  the  children  of 
Adam,  without  exception,  do  suffer — many  of  them,  in- 
tense agonies  and  death — before  they  have  committed 
in  their  own  proper  persons,  any  actual  sin.  If  the  suf- 
ferings of  moral  beings  must  necessarily  be  preceded  by 
sin,  as  their  moral  cause,  and  if  there  is  no  actual,'  per- 
sonal sin,  we  are  forced  back  upon  original  sin,  as'thar 
which  creates  liability  to  suffering,  and  affords  a  satis- 
factory solution  to  the  difficulties  of  the  case.  The  true 
and  real  cause  of  the  sickness,  pain,  and  death  of  infants, 
is  their  sin,  committed,  not  by  themselves,  actually  and 
personally,  but  federatively,  in  their  first  falher  Adam  ; 
who,  appointed  by  his  Creator  for  this  end,  acted  for 
them,  and  they  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his 
first  transgression.  Thus,  we  are  led  back  from  effects 
to  their  causes;  just  as  we  were  before  led  from  causes 
to  their  effects  :  we  are  irresistablv  borne  towards  the 
conclusion,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  rightfully  imputed 
to  his  posterity. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ON  ORIGINAL  SIN. ARGUMENT— AN  EXPOSITION  OF 

ROMANS  V.    12 21.. 

The  reasoning  in  the  preceding  chapter,  is  substantial- 
ly borrowed  from  the  Apostle  Paul :  and  I  propose  now, 
to  present  a  brief  exposition-  of  that  difficult,  and  very 
important  passage,  Rom.  v.  12 — 21. 

The  general  analysis  given  by  Dr.  Hodge,  is  undoubt- 
edly the  true  one,  and  it  is  stated  in  those  lines  of  light 
which  always  follow  his  pen  :  I  therefore  quote  his 
summary,  from 'the  abridged  commentary:  viz. 

"  According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  it  consists  of 
five  parts. 

"  The  first,  contained  in  v.  12,  presents  the  first  mem- 
ber of  the  comparison  between  Christ  and  Adam. 

"The  second  contains  the  proof  of  the  position,  as- 
sumed in  the  12th  verse,  and  embraces  verses  13,  14, 
which  are  therefore  subordinate  to  v.  12.  Mam,  there- 
fore, is  a  type  of  Christ.. 

"  The  third,  embracing  vs.  15,  16,  17,  is  a  commen- 
tary on  this  declaration,  by  which  it  is  at  once  illustrated 
and  limited. 

"  The  fourth,  in  vs.  18,  19,  resumes  and  carries  out 
the  comparison  commenced  in  v.  12. 

"  The  fifth  forms  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter,  and 
contains  a  statement  of  the  design  and  effect  of  the  law, 
and  of  the  gospel,  suggested  by  the  preceding  compari- 
son, vs.  20,  21." 

1.  A  comparison  is  instituted  between  Adam  and 
Christ,  in  regard  to  their  legal  relations  and  not  to  their 
personal,  moral  qualities.  This  comparison  is  begun  in 
v.   12,*  wherein  it  is  affirmed,  (1.)  That  sin   entered 

*  I  once  thought  the  comparison  full  within  the  verse ;  but  am 
now  satisfied  the  general  opinion  is  correct.  See  sermon  in  the 
Presbyterian  Preacher. 


128  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

through  Adam  upon  the  world,  (2)  That  through  sin, 
death  entered,  and  (3)  Thus  death  passed  upon  all  men, 
through  him  in  whom  all  sinned.  Now,  it  is  in  refer- 
ence to  this  last,  that  the  parenthesis  occurs.  That 
part  of  the  comparison,  which  affirms  the  points  of  re- 
semblance in  Christ's  legal  relations,  to  those  of  Adam, 
is  postponed,  until  proof  is  offered  of  the  position,  "  in 
whom  all  sinned  :"  then  it  is  resumed  and  the  compari- 
son completed.* 

2.  This  translation  gives  the  literal  and  true  meaning 
of  the  language — "death   passed   through   the   one   in 


*  The  point  which  I  desire  to  establish  by  a  critical  examination, 
is,  that  t<p'  w  can  be  here  correctly  translated  only  in  whom.     For  al- 
though it  be  true  as  Dr.  Hodge  remarks,  that,  "it  is  not  necessary, 
in   order  to  defend  this  interpretation,  to  adopt,  the  rendering  in 
whom,;"     Yet  if  it  can  be  shown   that  there  are  insuperable  philo- 
logical objections  to  the  common  reading,  for  that,  or  because  that, 
the  other  rendering,  in  whom,  because  it  will  certainly  strengthen 
and  illustrate  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend,  ought  to  be  adopted. 
Let  us  therefore  endeavour  to  make  this  out.  And  (1 )  the  verb  hirp^zv 
translated  passed,  always  requires  a  case  expressed  or  implied,  for  the 
preposition,  in  composition,  to  govern:  passed  through — through 
what?  My  affirmation  is,  that  the  sentence  is  always  imperfect,  until 
a  case'is  supplied;  the  grammatical  construction  indispensibly  requires 
it.     This  compound  verb  occurs  (see  Schmidius)  forty-three  times  in 
the   New  Testament,  and  any  man  who  will  take  the  trouble  to 
examine  the  whole,  will  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  foregoing 
affirmation.     Let  us   inspect  a  few   of  the  passages,  in  the  order  of 
their  occurrence.     Matt.   xn.  43,  and  Luke  xi.  24.  "  the  unclean 
spirit  walkeih  through  dry  places."     Math,  xix,  24,   and  Mark  x. 
25,  "  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle."     In 
both  instances  the  preposition,  including  the  word  St,a  through,  is 
repeated  after  it.    Mark  iv.  35,  and  Luke  vin.  22.  "  hetuspass  over 
unto  the  other  side."     Let  us  pass  through  [the  lake  or  sea.]     Here 
the  governed  case  is  understood,  Luke  n.  15.    "  Let  us  now  go  over 
unto  Bethehem" — Let  us  pass  through  [the  country  or  villages — as 
Acts.  ix.  32.     Peter  passed  through  all  parts,"]  Luke  n.  35.  "  a 
sword  shall  pierce  through  thine  own  soul  also."     Here  is  the  accu- 
sative without  the  proposition   repeated.     Luke   iv.  30.  and  John 
vin.  49,  "passing  through  the  midst."  Luke  v.  15.     "So  much 
the  more  went  there  a  fame  abroad" — did  the  fame  pass  through  [all 
parts.]     Luke   ix.  6.  "and  went  through  the  towns" — and  v.  17, 
and  John  iv.  4. — he  passed  through  the  midst  of  Samaria — Luke 
xix.  1.  "  And  Jesus  passed  through  Jericho" — and  v.  4.  "  he  was  to 


ROMANS  V.  12 — 21.  129 

whom  all  sinned."  The  affirmation  of  all  sinning  in 
Adam,  is  proved  in  vs.  13  and  14.  The  first  point  he 
takes  toward  the  proof,  is  the  fact,  that  sin  was  in  the 
world  before  the  Mosaic  law — men  sinned  up  to  the  time 
of  the  Sinai  covenant. — until  the  law. 

(2)   The  existence  of  sin,  proves  the   existence  of  a 


pass  that  way — through  that  place.  In  Acts  the  word  occurs  twen- 
ty-one times;  In  eleven  of  these,  viz;  ix.  32 — xu.  10 — xiii.  6 — 
xiv.  24— xy.  3— 41— xvi.  6— xvin.  23— xix.  1.  21 — xx.  2, 
the  case  governed,  is  expressed  without  a  repetition  of  the  preposi- 
tion, and  is  always  the  accusative;  except  ix.  32,  where  the  proposi- 
tion is  repeated  with  the  genitive:  it  is  never  repeated  with  the  accu- 
sative. In  the  remaining  ten,  viz:  viu.  4,  40 — ix.  38 — x.  38 — 
xi.  19,  22 — xiii.  14 — xvii.  23 — xvin.  27 — xx.  25,  the  cases  are 
not  expres-ed,  but  the  sentences  are  elliptical  and  can  easily  be  filled 
up.  Ex.  gr.  (case  1) — "they  that  were  scattered  abroad  went  every 
where  [through  all  parts]  (2)  "Philip — passing  through  [all  parts] 
— preached  in  all  the  cities." — (3)  "  desiring  him  that  he  would  not 
delay  to  come  to  them,  [to  pass  through  the  intervening  regions,]  (4) 
"who  went  about,  [passed  through  the  country]  doing  good" — (5) 
"went  as  far  as  to  Phenice" — passed  through  the  country  to  Phenice. 
And  thus  it  is  in  every  instance;  there  is  an  ellipsis  which  must  be  filled 
up  to  complete  the  grammatical  construction  and  the  meaning.  For 
your  more  thorough  satisfaction,  I  add  the  remaining  instances  in  the 
New  Testament,  1  Con.  x.  1  — xvi.  5 — 2  Con.  i.  16 — Heb.  iv.  14. 
Convinced  I  am,  that  no  Greek  scholar  can  inspect  them,  without 
passing  through  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  medium  through  which 
he  passes  must  always  be  supplied,  to  complete  the  sense  and  the 
grammar  of  the  text. 

(2)  This  point  established,  our  next  inquiry  is  after  the  object  of 
the  compound  verb — or  rather,  the  medium  or  way  through  which 
the  thing  passes.  For  you  must  have  observed  there  always  is  a 
medium,  it  i?  through  something — through  dry  places — through  the 
eye  of  a  needle,  through  [the  sea]  through  [the  country] — 
through  thine  own  soul — through  the  midst — through  all  parts — 
And  thus,  in  every  instance  of  the  forty-three,  there  is  a  medium 
through  which  the  passage  is  made.  What  is  it  ]  Let' the  text  answer. 
"  Wherefore  as  oV  i voj  a^pwrfou  through  one  man  sin  elayjx^e 
passed  in  £,,$  upon  the  world,  and  §ta  through  sin  death  [passed  in 
upon  the  world,]  and  thus  f'tj  upon  all  men,  [the  world]  death 
8irj"k$£v  passed  through  [the  one]  i <j>'  9  *»  whom  all  sinned." 

That  there  is  an  ellipsis  of  81a  rov  ivbs  through  the  one  is  manifest 
from  the  17th  verse,  where  it  is  affirmed,  that  death  reigned  through 
the  one}  8ta  tov  evoj,  which  is  the  identical  idea  expressed  here, 


130  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

law — for  sin  is  not  imputed — men  cannot  be  held  pun- 
ishable for  sin,  who  have  had  no  knowledge  of  a  law, 
for  "  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law."  (3)  Yet  from 
Adam  to  Moses,  during  a  space  of  twenty-five  centuries, 
death  swayed  his  iron,  but  righteous  sceptre  over  the 
entire  race  of  Adam.  But  death  has  no  power  to  de- 
stroy, except  as  he  derives  his  power  from  the  law ;  be- 
cause the  law  exists  for  the  protection  of  innocence  and 
for  the  punishment  of  guilt.  Seeing  therefore,  that  the 
punishment  was  rightfully  inflicted,  it  is  undeniable  that 
sin  was  imputed,  and  the  sinner  held  to  be  guilty  before 
the  law.  But  how  does  this  prove  that  men  sinned — all 
men  in  Adam  ?    If  they,  in  and  by  their  own  personal 

The  phrase  upon  all  men  death  passed  in  through  the  one:\s  equiv- 
alent to  the  phrase  "by  one's  offence  death  reigned  through  the  one." 
The  ellipsis  in  the  12th  verse,  of  these  words  through  the  one,  occurs 
simply  because,  the  w.iter  had  mentioned,  in  the  two  preceding 
lines,  that  sin  entered  through  the  one  man  and  death  through  sin. 
To  avoid  tautology,  he  omits,  as  unnecessary,  the  writing  of  the  §ia 
a  fouth  time  in  the  same  sentence. 

3.  Our  next  examination  is  into  the  scriptural  meaning  of  the 
words  £$  cj  translated  for  that.  The  position  maintained  is,  that  it  is 
here  correctly  translated  only  by  the  words  in  whom,  or  in  which — 
by  whom  or  which.  And  let  us  pursue  the  same  mode — let  us  refer 
to  all  the  instances  wherein  the  words  occur  in  the  New  Testament. 

(1)  Matt.  xxvi.  50,  "And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Friend  iq>  $ 
wherefore  art  thou  come  V  But  the  reading  which  many  prefer — 
with  Griesbach  i$  0 — the  accusative  neuter  which  is  correctly  ren- 
dered on  account  of  what,  if  doubtless,  the  genuine  and  true  reading, 
Friend,  for  what — on  account  of  what,  art  thou  come?  This  must 
therefore  be  dismissed  as  not  affording  really  an  example.  (2)  Mark 
ii.  4,  and  Luke  v.  25 — "  they  let  down  the  bed  £^3  £  wherein,  in 
which,  he  lay" — "he  took  up  that  whereon  |<p'  cj  in  which,  he  lay." 
Here,  it  cannot,  with  any  tolerable  sense,  be  translated  as  a  causal  par- 
ticle— for,  or  because.  And  you  see  in  the  lattter  case,  just  as  in 
Rom.  v.  12,  the  antecedent  is  to  be  supplied  :  it  is  not  expressed  in 
the  text — he  took  up  [the  bed]  in  which  he  had  lain — death  passed 
through  [the  one]  in  whom  all  sinned. 

(3)  Philip  in.  12. — that  I  may  apprehend  that  for  which  it  9 
in  which  also  I  am  apprehended  of  Christ."  Here  again  the  antece- 
dent to  9  is  omitted  eliptically,  and  must  be  supplied  to  fill  up  the 
grammar  and  the  sense. 

(4)  Phil.  iv.  10. — Wherein,  «V  £  in  which  ye  were  also  careful, 


ROMANS  V.    12 21.  131 

acts,  sinned,  must  it  not  be  imputed,  and  they  die?  Can  the 
fact  of  death  therefore,  prove  any  thing  but  simply,  that 
the  soul  which  died,  had  sinned  himself,  personally? 
(4)  But  death  exercised  his  kingly  power,  by  rig-ht 
of  law,  over  some — over  multitudes  who  never  had 
sinned  in,  and  by  their  own  proper,  personal  acts,  like 
Adam.  He  was  created  in  full  maturity  of  mental  and 
of  bodily  powers,  and  the  law  was  given  to  him,  and  he 
wilfully  transgressed  it.  But  now,  vast  multitudes  have 
died,  who  never  had  matured  powers  and  a  clear  knowl- 
edge of  the  law.  All  the  infants  that  perished  in  the 
tlood,  and  all  that  have  been  cut  off  by  disease  and  by  vio- 
lence, before  and  since,  were  not  like  Adam  in  this  re- 
spect, and  could  not  therefore,  sin  after  the  similitude  of 
his  transgression.  How  then  did  they  sin  ?  For  that 
sin  was  imputed  to  them — that  they  were  guilty — that 
they  were  held  liable  to  punishment,  is  undeniably  evi- 
dent from  the   awful  fact,  that  they  did  suffer  death. 

(5)  2  Con.  v.  4.  "  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan,  being 
burdened;  not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  &c."  For  that,  is 
here  the  translation  of  £<}>  9.  But  if  you  substitute  the  literal  ren- 
dering, by  which,  you  will  both  improve  the  doctrine  and  state  the 
meaning. — We  groan,  being  burdened,  by  or  in  which  [groaning] 
we  do  not  wish  to  be  unclothed — our  groaning  is  not  be  considered 
as  expressing  a  restive  discontent  and  wishing  for  death. 

(6)  There  is  another  case  very  similar  to  Phil.  iv.  10,  in  Luke  xi.  22. 
where  the  same  preposition  is  connected  with  the  feminine  relative. 
'•But  when  a  stronger  then  he,  shall  come  upon  him,  and  overcome 
him,  he  taketh  from  him  all  his  armour  wherein  £$  y  in  which  he 
trusted." 

Thus  this  form  of  expression  cannot  possibly  be  considered  as  a 
causal  particle,  in  three  of  the  five  cases  in  which  it  occurs.  It  is  not 
at  all  necessary  to  consider  it  so  in  any  one  instance.  The  plain 
and  obvious  translation, — that  which  the  rules  of  grammar  and  the 
drift  of  the  apostles  reasoning  both  require,  \s,in  whom,  and  I  can  see 
no  good  reason  why  we  should  abandon  it,  simply  because  it  is  ex- 
cepted against  by  the  enemies  of  evangelical  doctrine,  though,  we 
ought  never  to  build  any  important  doctrine  upon  a  mere  verbal 
criticism.  Nor  do  I  propose  it  here.  What  I  insist  on,  is  simply 
that,  inasmuch  as  sound  criticism  and  the  current  of  the  apostle's 
reasoning,  conspire  to  establish  that  translation  which  makes  the 
truth  most  clearly  manifest,  we  are  bound  in  faithfulness  to  the  text 
to  receive  and  defend  it. 


132  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

Death  is  the  wages  of  sin  and  they  received  them.  Thev 
were  therefore  due  injustice.  On  account  of  what  sin  ? 
Personal  sin  ?  This  is  impossible,  for  there  was  none, 
nor  could  be.  Nay  but  on  account  of  their  sin  in  Adam, 
"  who  is  the  type  of  him  that  was  to  come."  Thus 
briefly  but  forcibly  and  clearly  does  the  Apostle  close  in 
the  argument  for  the  truth,  that  all  sinned  in  Adam. 

In  closing  it,  however,  he  intimates  a  similarity  be- 
tween Adam  and  him  that  was  to  come,  i.  e.  Christ,  as 
to  certain  points.  A  type  is  a  likeness,  pattern,  exam- 
ple, prepared  by  sculpture,  drawing,  impression,  with 
a  view  to  be  imitated  afterwards.  "  See  that  thou  make 
all  things  according  to  the  pattern,  type,  shewed  thee 
in  the  mount."  Heb.  viii.  5.  This  example  gives  the 
true  meaning  of  the  word,  and  accordingly,  it  is  used  to 
describe  the  resemblance,  in  the  hands  and  feet  of  the 
Saviour,  to  the  instruments  by  which  he  was  fastened 
to  the  wood, — "  the  print,  type,  of  the  nails."  "  Ye 
took  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch,  and  the  star  of  your 
God  Remphan,t/z.g-?o,es,  types,  which  ye  made  to  wor- 
ship." Acts  vii.  43.  "  These  things  were  our  examples, 
types.'"'  1.  Cor.  x.  6,  and  v.  11, — "All  those  things  hap- 
pened to  them  for  examples;  types  ;  and  they  are  writ- 
ten for  our  admonition."  And  six  other  times  it  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  in  the  same  sense.  Christ  and 
Adam  then  are  alike — the  latter  was  a  type,  an  exam- 
ple, a  pattern,  a  print,  a  figure,  of  the  former. 

3.  But  now  it  is  obvious,  that  points  of  resemblance 
may  be,  and  yet  other  points  of  dissimilarity  exist  too. 
Our  printing  types  and  the  letters  formed  by  them,  are 
alike  and  yet  very  unlike.  What  are  the  points  of  like- 
ness intended  between  Christ  and  Adam  ?  What  are  the 
unlike  points  ?  Personal,  moral  character,  is  surely  not 
intended:  but  legal  relations.  They  both  stand  as  cov- 
enant representative  heads  to  distinct  bodies  of  men, 
whose  destiny  is  effected  by  their  conduct,  respectively. 
And,  as  resembling  objects  may  have  their  points  of 
resemblance  made  more  prominent  and  striking,  by 
bringing  into  view  the  points  of  difference,  the  Apostle 
suspends  still  farther  the  comparison  begun  in  the  12th 
verse,  that  he  may  draw  this  contrast.     "  This  he  does, 


uomans  v.  12 — 21.  133 

says  Dr.  Hodge,  principally  by  shewing  in  verses  15, 
16,  17,  the  particulars  in  which  the  comparison  does 
not  hold." 

Verse  15.  "  But  not  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free 
gift."  The  o (Fence  is  Adam's  sin  imputed  ;  the  free  gift 
is  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  :  and  these  are  cppo- 
sites.  Now  if  by  the  offence  of  the  one,  [Adarnj  tne 
many  [all,  v.  18]  died,  much  more  the  grace  of  God 
and  the  gift  [of  righteousness,  v.  17]  by  grace,  which  is, 
or  belongs,  to  the  one  man,  Christ  Jesus,  abounded  unto 
the  many  [the  all  of  v.  18].  By  the  sin  of  Adam,  the 
many  died.  Not,  Adam  occasioned  their  death,  but  he 
caused  it :  not  as  David  occasioned  the  death  of  Ahim- 
elech  and  the  priests,  but  as  Saul  and  Doeg  caused  their 
death.  1.  Sam.  xxii.  18,  &c.  By  the  grace  of  Christ, 
which  includes  the  bestowment  of  all  his  merits,  consist- 
ing of  his  entire  acts  of  obedience  and  his  sufferings — 
the  many  live — his  grace  abounds  through  righteousness 
unto  eternal  life.  There  is  here  a  point  resemblance  ; 
viz.  in  the  federative  or  representative  principle  involved 
in  both.  There  is  also  a  point  of  contrast ;  viz.  the  ac- 
tion of  the  one  is  to  death ;  of  the  other,  to  life.  Hence, 
the  emphasis  of  the  sentence  lies  on  the  much  more.  If 
one  bad  act,  brought  death  upon  all  represented  in  it ; 
much  more,  shall  innumerable  good  acts,  bring  life  to  all 
represented  in  them. 

Verse  16  contains  another  point  of  contrast;  viz.  Not 
as  [the  offence]  through  the  one  sinning,  [so  is]  the 
gift.  For  the  judgment  was  from  one  [offence]  to  con- 
demnation. By  Adam's  one  sin,  as  the  just  and  effi- 
cacious procuring  cause,  a  sentence  of  condemnation 
(xatuxpLfia)  was  brought  upon  all  his  people.  But  on 
the  contrary,  "  the  free  gift,"  which  was  secured  by 
Christ's  entire  life,  consisting  of  innumerable  acts  of 
obedience  and  of  all  his  sufferings,  delivered  his  people 
"  from  many  offences,"  and  secures  to  them  "  a  sen- 
tence of  justification."  (Stxcu'u/ta.)  Here,  it  is  to  our 
purpose  to  remark  particularly,  the  condemnation  is 
from  one  offence,  viz:  Adam's  first  sin.  Language  can- 
not express  the  thought  more  definitely.  He  does  not 
say,  the  one  offence  of  Adam  opened  the  way  for  many 
12 


134  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

offences  to  follow  in  his  people,  and  for  those  many  of- 
fences— their  personal  sins — the  condemnation  comes. 
His  language  absolutely  excludes  this.  He  says,  (*£  hoe) 
from  the  one,  is  the  judgement  to  condemnation.  No 
other  sin  is  necessary  to  bring  the  sentence  of  condem- 
nation upon  men — no  voluntary  act  of  theirs,  as  an  evi- 
dence of  their  consent — nothing  but  the  one  offence  is 

o 

concerned  in  it.  The  first,  and  main  idea  of  original  sin 
is  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin.  In  other  words,  his  poster- 
ity, by  reason  of  his  sin,  are  under  coridemnalion,  and 
consequently  liable  to  suffer  all  that  sin  deserves. 

Verse  17,  is  an  enlargement  of  the  15th,  with  an  addi- 
tional illustration  personifying  death,  borrowed  from  the 
14th.  For,  if  by  the  transgression  of  the  one,  [^dam~j 
death  obtained  a  rightful  dominion,  through  the  one  \j>ia 
r«  hoi]  and  exercises  it  [ipmduwst,  has  reigned  and  is 
reigning  as  king,] ;  much  more  they  which  receive 
abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness, 
shall  reign  in  life  through  the  one.  Jesus  Christ.  If 
the  King  of  terrors  received  by  the  one  transgression  of 
Adam,  his  iron  sceptre,  for  the  destruction  of  men: 
much  more  shall  the  justified  in  Christ,  live  and  reign 
with  him.  "As  it  was  by  one  man,  antecedently  to  any 
concurrence  of  our  own,  that  we  were  brought  into  a 
state  of  condemnation,  so  it  is  bv  one  man,  without  anv 
merit  of  our  own,  that  we  are  delivered  from  this  state. 
If  the  one  event  has  happened,  much  more  may  we  ex- 
pect the  other  to  occur.  If  we  are  thus  involved  in  the 
condemnation  of  sin,  in  which  we  had  no  personal  con- 
cern, much  more,  shall  we,  who  voluntary  receive  the 
gift  of  righteousness,  be  not  only  saved  from  the  con- 
sequences of  the  fall,  but  be  made  partakers  of  eternal 
life."     Hodge  on  Rom.  p.  127. 

Thus,  in  verses  13  and  14  is  proved  the  truth  of  the 
affirmation  in  the  close  of  v.  12 — viz:  that  all  sinned  in 
Adam.  Thus  in  vs.  15.  16.  17,  is  proved  the  truth  of 
the  affirmation  in  the  close  of  the  14th  verse  ;  viz.  that 
Adam  was  a  type  of  Christ.  Having  proved  the  truth 
of  his  whole  first  branch  of  the  comparison,  viz:  that  sin 
and  death  passed  upon  all  men,  through  him  in  whom  all 
sinned,  he  proceeds  in  v.  18,  to  complete  the  comparison. 


ROMANS  V.    12 21.  135 

44  In  very  deed,  therefore,  as  through  one's  offence, 
[transgression]  it  [sentence]  came  upon  all  men  unto  con- 
demnation: so  also  through  one's  righteousness  [8i.xaiuy.a- 
roj,  justification  v.  16.  ftj  8ixalu>/xa,  a  sentence  declaring 
the  person  righteous]  [it]  the  free  gift,  came  upon  all 
men,  unto  justification  [_8t,xaMaw,  justifying,  the  process 
of  judging]  of  life. 

4 ;  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgement 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so,  by  the 
righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  un- 
to justification  of  life."  As  we  are  all  condemned, 
through  the  righteousness  of  Adam — even  so  we  are  all 
justified  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Condem- 
nation is  by  Adam  :  justification  by  Christ.  Death  by 
Adam  :  life  by  Christ.  Here  we  again  remark,  is  the 
essence  of  our  doctrine  of  original  sin  ;  viz.  guilt — lia- 
bility to  penal  evil  . 

But  you  see,  the  matter  of  the  comparison  is  really  a 
contrast ;  the  resemblance  is  the  manner.  As  by  the 
offence — even  so  by  the  righteousness.  It  is  the  same 
in  1.  Cor.  xv.  22.  '4For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ,  shall  all  be  made  alive/'  The  precise  point  of 
resemblance,  or  likeness,  or  type,  as  in  v.  14,  lies  in  the 
manner  of  becoming  condemned,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
justified  on  the  other — of  dying  by  Adam,  and  being 
made  alive  by  Christ.  The  manner,  it  is  affirmed,  is, 
the  same  in  both  cases.  And  to  perceive  the  resem- 
blance, we  must  enquire  how — in  what  manner  did  all 
become  involved  in  condemnation  and  death,  by  Adam? 
how, — in  what  manner  are  all  secured  of  justification 
and  life  by  Christ  ?  The  answer  here,  is  obvious  enough, 
from  the  doctrine  of  federal  representation  and  the  con- 
sequent imputation  of  the  guilt  of  the  representer  to  the 
represented.  How  did  all  come  under  condemnation, 
and  thus  die  in  Adam?  In  what  manner?  On  what 
principle?  In  this  way  ;  viz:  He  represented,  or  acted 
f  r  them  in  the  covenant  of  works  ;  consequently,  his  act 
in  sinning,  was  imputed  to  them ;  they  were  held  liable 
to  punishment  for  it,  and  thus  died  in  him.  How  do  all 
men  eome  under  justification,  and  thus  become  alive  in 
Christ?  In  what  manner?  On  what  principle?  Exactly 


136  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

in  the  same  manner;  viz:  He  represented  them,  or  act- 
ed for  them,  in  the  covenant  of  grace;  consequently,  his 
act  in  obeying,  was  imputed  to  them — they  were  held  lia- 
ble to  reward  for  it,  and  thus  live  in  him. 

Thus,  all  whom  Adam  represented,  were  condemned 
and  died  in  him.  Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  incomparable  com- 
ment on  this  passage,  gives  us  the  essence  of  the  whole 
in  three  lines:  "Paul's  doctrine,  therefore,  is,  'As  on 
account  of  the  offence  of  Adam,  all  connected  with  him, 
are  condemned :  so  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  all  connected  with  him  have  the  justification  of 
life.'  " 

This  same  reasoning  applies  to  the  comparison  of  the 
19th  verse  :  where  it  is  affirmed,  that  by  the  disobedi- 
ence of  the  one  man  [Adam]  the  many  were  made  sinners, 
and  that  "  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  [Christ]  the  many 
shall  be  made  righteous.  It  is  not  affirmed  that  the 
many  were  put  by  Adam's  act  into  such  a  state,  that  so 
soon  as  they  would  act  for  themselves,  they  would  be 
sinners  ;  nor  that  the  many  were  put  into  such  a  state 
by  Christ's  acts  and  sufferings,  that  so  soon  as  they 
would  act,  they  would  be  righteous.  The  language  is 
positive,  and  cannot  be  made  to  express  such  a  meaning. 
By  Adam's  act,  his  people  became  sinners  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  and  were  by  it,  held  liable  to  suffer.  By  Christ's 
acts,  his  people  became  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law, 
and  are  by  it,  held  liable  to  happiness.  And  in  both 
cases,  the  meaning  is  precisely  the  same :  it  is  by  their 
sustaining  to  their  respective  federal  representatives, 
the  relations  constituted  by  the  covenants  entered  into 
by  God,  with  the  first  and  the  second  Adams,  respec- 
tively. 

v.  The  fifth  division  of  the  context  includes  vs.  20, 
21,  and  seems  to  have  some  specific  purpose,  though 
brought  in  incidentally  as  it  were,  in  connexion  with 
the  expansion  and  final  statement  of  the  comparison. 

The  specific,  yet  apparently  incidental  purpose,  is,  to 
forestall  and  foreclose  the  objection  of  the  Jew,  who  still 
entertained  the  notion  that  the  Mosaic  law  must  have  some 
essential  agency  in  the  sinner's  justification.  Whereas, 
the  Apostle  runs  entirely  beyond  the  days  of  Moses,  and 


ROMANS  v.  12—21.  137 

comes  down  to  a  period  after  his  law  ceases.  What 
then,  the  Jew  asks,  is  the  use  of  the  law?  If  justifica- 
tion has  no  intimate  connexion  and  no  dependence  on 
the  law  of  Moses,  "  wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  ?" 
Of  what  use  was  it  ?  The  law  here,  is  manifestly  not  the 
moral  law,  as  it  is  set  forth  in  many  parts  of  Moses' 
writings  ;  nor  the  gospel  truths  also  exhibited  in  the 
same  ;  but  all  that  which  became  of  binding  obligation, 
because  it  is  revealed  by  Moses.  That  is,  all  the  posi- 
tive rules,  commanding  as  duties,  things  which  were  not 
obligatory  as  duties  before.  The  moral  la\vr  and  gospel 
promises  existed  prior  to  the  Sinai  institutions,  and  really 
form  no  peculiar  part  of  them.  If  therefore,  reasons 
the  Jew,  justification  and  salvation  took  place,  as  you 
have  proved,  before,  and  after  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
consequently,  independently  on  it,  I  should  like  to  know, 
of  what  use  it  is.  "  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  ?" 
Paul  answers  this  question,  Gal.  in.  19.  "It  was  added, 
because  of  transgression." — So  here,  "the  law  entered," 
it  "  was  super-induced  on  a  plan  already  laid,"  for  this 
precise  end,  to  increase  upon  the  minds  of  the  Israelites, 
a  sense  of  the  great  evil  of  sin,  by  exposing  them  to  a 
vast  variety  and  number  of  dangers  to  sin.  Transgres- 
sions are  multiplied  to  them,  and  ceremonial  purifica- 
tions are  perpetually  required  for  these  multiplied  trans- 
gressions, and  thus  there  is  kept  up  a  constant  remem- 
brance of  their  sinfulness ;  and  thus  the  law  of  Moses 
was  a  pedagogue  to  lead  these  children  to  Christ.  It 
had  this  important  bearing  upon  the  interests  of  salva- 
tion, that  its  yoke  of  bondage  on  their  neck,  made  them 
feel  the  necessity  of  Christ's  freedom  ;  and  its  ceremo- 
nial purifications  directed  them  to  Him. 

Thus,  the  practical  effect  of  the  Mosaic  law  is,  to  mul- 
tiply transgression,  and  thus  sin  abounded:  but  another 
effect  is  to  turn  the  mind,  in  multiplied  proportion,  to  the 
source  of  pardon  ;  and  so  grace  did  far  more  abound  and 
overflow'. 

Having  thus  foreclosed  the  Jew's  objection,  the  Apos- 
tle returns  upon  the   general  comparison,  and  resuming 
his  beautiful  trope,  represents  sin  as  a  monster  king,  en- 
dued with  legal  power,  and  exercising  it  in  and  by  his 
12* 


138  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

prime  minister  death.  He  had  in  v.  14,  represented 
death  as  the  king  who  reigned  over  all  men  ;  now  he 
enthrones  sin,  which  is  the  cause  of  death — to  which 
death  is  only  ministerial ;  for  the  power  to  hurt,  the 
sting  of  death  is  sin.  It  is  sin  therefore,  that  acts  the 
part  of  a  king,  and  death  follows  his  train. 

But  grace  too  is  enthroned ;  she  sits  a  queen  and  ex- 
ercises her  sovereign  power  with  an  heavenly  benignity. 
Majesty  attends  her  steps  ;  righteousness  and  truth  go 
before  her  ;  not  an  act  of  her's  sacrifices  the  interests  of 
either;  neither  of  them  is  crushed  beneath  her  triumph- 
al car,  nor  are  they  dragged  in  servile  chains  at  her 
chariot  wheels — they  go  before  her,  as  heralds  of  the 
coming  joy  ;  they  tell  of  a  fulfilled  law,  of  an  exhausted 
curse,  of  a  hell  extinguished  in  the  blood  of  calvary, 
of  a  heaven  lighted  up  by  the  life  of  Jesus. 

Application. — Come  then,  #  ye  degraded,  lost  and 
ruined  subjects  of  the  King  of  Terrors,  and  bow  before 
the  majesty  of  our  queen.  In  her  hand  is  the  golden 
sceptre,  which  if  a  man  but  touch,  with  the  outstretched 
and  trembling  hand  of  faith,  he  shall  live  forever.  "He 
that  liveth  and  believeth  in  me,  shall  never  die.'* 

2dly.  Who  can  but  admire  the  profound  simplicity 
of  the  apostle's  reasoning?  This  is  one  of  those 
splendid  passages,  which,  whenever  his  attention  can 
be  arrested  to  the  meaning  of  the  language,  compels 
the  learned  infidel  to  admire  the  power  of  Paul's  logic, 
though  he  may  despise  the  purity  of  his  doctrine.  You 
have  here  a  splendid  exemplification  of  the  argument 
from  effects,  to  their  causes.  You  see  also  how  much 
the  power  of  argument  depends  upon  the  mind's  capaci- 
ty to  trace  resemblances. 

3.  Where  men  enjoy  the  gospel  and  its  ordinances, 
the  presumptions  and  probabilities  are  all  favourable  to 
them,  and  go  to  encourage  diligence  in  the  use  of  means. 
How  much  more  abundant  the  grace  of  Christ,  than  the 
ruin  of  Adam!  If  unlike  things  may  be  compared  in 
quantity,  how  much  more  of  merit  is  there  in  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ,  than  of  demerit  in  the  disobedience  of 
Adam.     Hence  the  certainty  of  death  by  the  one  en- 


SALVATION  OF  INFANTS.  139 

hatices,  to  every  one  that  believes  in  him,    the  certainty 
of  life  by  the  other. 

4.  It  does  not  however,  follow  that  all  men  are  or  will 
be  saved  ;  but  only  that  all  whom  Christ  represented  ; 
just  as  all  whom  Adam  represented  die  in  him. 

5.  Who  they  are,  whom  Christ  represented,  can  be  as- 
certained to  us,  only  by  the  evidences  of  true  conversion. 
Christ  represented  all  that  will  ever  reach  eternal  hap- 
piness— all  that  will  ever  be  qualified  for  its  enjoyment 
— all  good  and  true  believers  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  and 
to  the  end  of  time — all  that  immense  multitude  which 
no  man  can  number,  who  shall  sing  the  song  of  Moses 
and  the  Lamb.  That  we  mav  be  found  anions:  that 
countless  throng,  let  us  labor,  and  pray,  and  suffer  with 
him,  so  shall  we  be  glorified  together. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ORIGINAL  SIN PROVED    FROM  THE    SALVATION    OF    THOSE 

THAT  DIE   IN  INFANCY. 

The  limits  of  legitimate  enquiry,  it  is  of  sOxTie  impor- 
tance to  know.  And  it  is  not  a  little  difficult  to  deter- 
mine, in  many  cases,  where  they  lie.  Owing  to  this 
difficulty,  and  the  consequent  uncertainty,  as  to  the  lim- 
its of  attainable  knowledge,  much  labor,  no  doubt,  has 
been  spent  in  vainly  attempting  to  pass  beyond  the  bar- 
riers which  divine  wisdom  has  erected.  "Secret  things," 
it  is  admitted,  4i  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God,  but 
those  things  which  are  revealed,  belong  unto  us,  and  to 
our  children;"  let  us  therefore,  in  our  enquiries  into  the 
the  condition  of  these  immense  multitudes  of  our  race, 
who  die  in  infancy,  be  peculiarly  cautious  not  tc  over- 
step the  boundaries  of  prudence  and  revealed  wisdom. 

In  the  preceding  chapter,  I  have  developed  the  argu- 
ment for  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  from  the  fact  of  in- 


140  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

fants'  sufferings.  Now  I  propose  to  deduce  another 
from  the  fact  of  their  ultimate  salvation.  In  its  prosecu- 
tion, a  number  of  distinct  remarks  will  be  necessary. 

SECTION  I. 

Infants  go  to  Heaven. 

It  is  not  inconsistent  with  any  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
that  the  souls  of  deceased  infants  go  to  heaven.  And 
yet  it  is  a  doctrine  taught  only  by  implication,  and  learn- 
ed only  by  inference.  There  is  no  direct  and  express 
declaration  of  scripture  to  this  amount.  The  Saviour 
declares  [Math,  xviii.  3,  &c]  "Except  ye  be  converted 
and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 

kingdom  of  heaven But  whoso  shall  offend  one  of 

these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  &c."  From  the 
3d.  verse,  we  would  incline  to  believe  that  infants,  prior 
to  moral  agency  and  before  actual  sin,  were  intended; — 
but  the  6th  v.  seems  to  exclude  that  thought ;  for  they 
are  such  as  are  capable  of  exercising  faith  in  Christ. 
And  no  doubt  it  is  the  simplicity  of  their  belief  that  con- 
stitutes the  point  of  the  comparison.  Except  ye  be  con- 
verted and  become  as  little  children,  whose  leading  char- 
acteristic is,  to  believe  their  parents,  with  a  simple  and 
unwavering  confidence,  ye  cannot  be  saved.  The  per- 
sons spoken  of,  are  little  ones,  yet  so  matured  as  to 
believe  in  Jesus  :  this  context,  therefore,  says  noming 
on  the  question   about  infants   who  die  prior  to   moral 


agency. 


The  case,  [Math.  xix.  14,]  is  not  more  explicit. — 
41  Suffer  little  children  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto 
me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  king- 
dom of  heaven  here,  is  beyond  question,  the  visible  king- 
dom, viz  :  the  church  of  God.  The  Master  does  not  say 
the  church,  or  kingdom  consists  of  them  ;  but  only,  that 
it  is  theirs,  it  belongs  to  them,  [rowvtcov  iativ^  they  have 
a  right  of  possession  in  it.  The  question  cannot  be  rea- 
sonably raised  here,  as  to  their  moral  character,  but  only 
as  to  there  legal,  or  ecclesiastical  rights.  Under  the  old 
dispensation,  they   were  recognised  as  belonging  to  th« 


SALVATION  OF  INFANTS.  141 

church  ;  and  her  spiritual  care  was  extended  over  them 
and  her  seal  was  put  upon  them.  The  disciples  seem 
not  to  have  comprehended  the  genius  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation here,  as  in  other  things,  and  were  for  keeping 
back  the  little  children  ;  but  the  Lord  asserts  their  rights, 
and  encourages  their  approach. 

The  only  thing:  in  this  context,  that  would  seem  to 
constitute  a  basis  for  the  inference,  that  infants  are  saved, 
is,  the  fact  of  his  laying  hands  on  them,  and  blessing 
them.  There  is  however,  no  ground  to  infer  any  thing 
in  reference  to  those  that  die  in  infancy,  for  this  is  man- 
ifestly not  the  class  of  infants  presented  in  the  context. 

In  Rev.  xi.  18,  the  prophet  speaks  of  "  them  that 
fear  thy  name,  small  and  great ;"  and  in  xix.  5,  he  ex- 
claims. "  Praise  our  God,  all  ye  his  servants,  and  ye 
that  fear  him,  both  small  and  great,"  and  in  xx.  12,  he 
avers  that  he  "  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great  stand  be- 
fore God;  and  the  books  were  opened." — The  first 
passage  may  possibly  relate  to  the  same  event  as  the 
last,  viz  :  the  process  of  judgement:  but  the  second  re- 
fers to  the  glorious  of  the  millenial  morning ;  and  I 
doubt  very  much,  whether  the  phrase,  small  and  great 
has  any  reference  whatever  to  size — to  infancy  and 
manhood ;  rather  does  it  refer  to  the  state  and  condition 
of  men  in  society  in  this  life.  Princes  and  nobles,  as 
well  as  the  humblest  of  the  race,  are  called  upon  to  bow 
before  the  Lord,  and  to  give  in  their  account  to  our  Re- 
deemer. If  this  be  the  true  view,  then  these  passages 
say  nothing  on  the  condition  of  those  who  die  before 
moral  agency.  Nor  can  I  find  any  other  passage  in 
the  sacred  volume  that  speaks  explicitly.  God  indeed 
does  promise  to  every  believer  to  be  a  God  unto  him 
and  to  his  seed  after  him.  This  max)  include  the  chil- 
dren that  die  in  infancy  ;  but  it  certainly  does  include 
those,  who  grow  up  to  man's  estate. 

On  what  ground  then,  do  we  rest  our  faith  that  our 
little  ones,  who  are  removed,  are  taken  to  God  ?  How 
do  we  know,  that  these  tender  scions  are  transplanted 
into  the  paradise  of  God  on  high  ?  The  only  true  an- 
swer is,  that  we  do  not  know  it  positively  to  be  so.  It 
is  only  a  high  presumption — an  opinion  rather  that  an 


142  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

article  of  faith.  There  is  nothing  in  the  thought  opposed 
to  the  general  drift  of  scripture  doctrines ;  but  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  agreeable  to  the  general  spirit  of  the  gos- 
pel and  the  particular  passages  above  cited :  and  more- 
over, it  is  very  agreeable  to  the  feelings  of  afflicted 
parents. 

If  these  things  be  so,  it  might  repay  for  the  trouble, 
to  enquirs,  why  such  studied  silence  seems  to  pervade 
the  sacred  volumns  ?  Why  is  no  express  mention  made 
of  the  salvation  of  infants?  Has  God  no  wise  design 
in  it  ?  Has  he  not  given  sufficient  encouragement  to  the 
faith  of  true  christians  to  sustain  and  comfort  them  in 
sorrow — whilst  he  has  withheld  from  the  unbelieving 
all  the  comforts  of  faith  ?  To  me  this  appears  to  be  the 
state  of  the  case.  From  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  and 
our  compliance  with  God's  requirement  to  dedicate  our 
infant  offspring  to  Him,  we  who  believe,  have  sufficient 
ground  of  encouragement ;  whilst  to  those  who  despise 
his  grace,  and  reject  his  ordinances,  there  is  no"  conso- 
lation ministered.  Thus,  in  the  silence  of  scripture, 
there  is  wisdom.  Rebellious  men,  on  the  one  hand, 
are  not  allowed  to  eat  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life;  whilst 
on  the  other,  no  flaming  sword  repels  th3  children  of 
the  covenant.  Besides,  our  opinions  are  utterly  una- 
vailing to  the  dying  infant;  he  is  beyond  any  agency 
of  ours,  but  that  of  prayer,  and  to  this,  there  is  promise. 

As  to  the  opinion  that  all  who  die  in  infancy,  both  chil- 
dren of  believers  and  unbelievers,  christians  and  pagans, 
go  to  happiness  and  heaven,  it  may  be  harmlessly  en- 
tertained :  it  may  however  operate  an  evil  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  unbelieving  and  wicked  parents;  and 
that  it  does  so  operate,  I  have  not  the  least  doubt.  Tell 
wicked,  graceless  and  profligate  parents,  who  despise 
Jesus  and  his  religion,  that  their  dead  infant  is  gone  to 
happiness,  and  you  encourage  them  to  continue  in  un- 
belief; for  they  can  and  do  see  that  this  is  all  you  could 
tell  the  most  pious,  and  devoted  and  prayerful  believers, 
concerning  their  offspring.  You  thus,  put  no  difference 
as  to  comfort  in  existing  circumstances,  between  the 
precious,  and  the  vile,  and  encourage  a  continuance  in  the 
wickedness  and  crime  of  despising  gospel  ordinances. 


INFANT  SALVATION.  143 

Whilst  therefore,  I  have  no  objection  to  the  opinion,  that 
all  who  die  in  infancy,  go  to  happiness;  yetl  must  think, 
that,  in  reference  to  the  infants  of  unbelievers,  it  is  mere 
opinion  ;  and  not  a  doctrine  taught  expressly,  or  by  fair 
implication  in  the  word  of  God  ;  and  that,  although  it  is 
in  all  probability  an  opinion  according  to  truth  ;  still, 
not  having  a  divine  warrant  for  it,  and  it  being  of  evil 
tendency,  we  are  not  warranted  in  its  unqualified  asser- 
tion before  an  unbelieving  world.  For  our  purposes, 
and,  it  appears  to  me,  for  all  the  benevolent  purposes  of 
the  gospel,  it  is  sufficient  to  affirm,  concerning  the  de- 
ceased infants  of  believing  parents,  that  they  are  gone 
to  glory. 

• 

SECTION  II. 

These  infants  come  to  eternal  happiness  through  Jesus 

Christ,  our  Lord — they  are  saved  and  are  indebted 

to  Jesus  for  their  salvation. 

(1)  In  proof  of  this  position,  I  adduce  the  case  quoted 
above,  where  Jesus  commands,  "suffer  little  children  and 
forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me." — and  where  all,  both 
small  and  great  are  commanded  to  praise  our  God.  True, 
I  have  set  these  aside  as  proof  texts  in  the  case,  and  I 
adduce  them  only  as  a  bar  to  those  who  may  feel  dis- 
posed to  demur  at  my  interpretation.  If  they  insist 
that  these  texts  are  applicable  to  the  souls  of  dead  in- 
fants, then  I  insist  that  they  are  pertinent  proofs  that 
such  are  saved  through  Christ. 

(2)  In  the  account  given  of  the  final  judgement,  Matt, 
xxv.  the  immense  throng"  are  divided  into  two  parts, 
and  into  two  only.  In  one  or  the  other  of  these  two, 
every  individual  of  the  human  race  is  included.  No 
third  party  or  portion  is  ever  mentioned — they  are  the 
sheep  and  the  goats — the  righteous  and  the  wicked — 
the  children  of  God,  and  the  children  of  the  ivicked  one 
— the  elect  and  the  reprobate.  There  are  then  but  two 
classes,  and  consequently,  one  of  these  classes  includes 
the  happy  souls  of  them  that  die  in  infancy.  But  now 
this  immense  thiong,  on  the  right  hand,  are  the  same 


144  INFANT  SALVATION. 

as  the  immense  multitude  mentioned  in  Revelations,  vii. 
chapter,  which  no  man  can  number,  who  shout  "  Salva- 
tion to  our  God,  which  sitleth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto 
the  Lamb,"  "and  have  washed  their  robes,  and  made 
them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb" — the  same  mul- 
titude, mentioned  in  chapter  xix.  the  voice  of  whose 
thunderings  rolls  along  the  skies,  "  saying,  Allelujah  ; 
for  the  Lord  God  Omnipotent  reigneth  ;  let  us  be  glad 
and  rejoice,  and  give  honour  to  him ;  for  the  marriage  of 
the  Lamb  is  come,  and  his  wife  hath  made  herself  ready." 
Now,  can  any  man,  we  ask,  whose  soul  is  sanctified  by 
the  washing  of  the  Lamb's  blood,  affirm,  that  in  this 
thundering  acclamation  of  redeemed  millions,  there's  not 
a  single  note  from  infant  lips !  From  the  grand  choir 
which  makes  heaven's  high  arches  ring,  when  the  man 
of  Calvary  saith  "  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,"  must 
all  infants  be  excluded  !  Must  all  the  little  mourners  of 
Rama  be  cut  off  from  rejoicing  now  !  !  Not  an  infant  be 
allowed  to  tune  its  voice  to  praise  redeeming  love  !  !  ! 
Beleive  it,  if  ye  can,  ye  mothers  in  Israel !  Believe  it,  ye 
who  have  closed  in  death  the  eyes  of  loveliness — who 
have  deposited  in  clay  the  fragile  forms  which  fade  in 
immortality  !  Believe  it,  ye  whose  souls  anticipate  with 
joy,  the  promised  morn,  when  youth  and  "beauty  im- 
mortal shall  wake  from  her  tomb  ;" — whose  ears  hope 
then  to  hear,  in  clear  and  silvery  tones,  from  lips  denied 
such  utterance  here  below,  the  song  of  Moses  and  the 
Lamb! 

Ah  !  no  !  This  ye  cannot  believe.  For  faith  must 
have  the  evidence  of  testimony  to  rest  upon  :  and  God 
has  recorded  no  testimony  against  the  doctrine  of  infant 
salvation.  No  part  of  the  Bible  affirms,  that  they  are 
received  to  eternal  happiness,  on  any  other  grounds 
than  through  the  blood  and  righteousness  of  your  blessed 
Redeemer.  Ah!  no! — parental  faith,  and  parental  feel- 
ing unite  in  the  blessed  hope,  that  their  dead  infants 
shall  live  and  reign  with  Christ,  forever — that  heaven's 
music  would  be  incomplete  without  the  symphony  of 
their  sweet  voices — that  until  they  strike  their  lofty 
note,  half  the  praises  of  redeeming  blood  remain  unsung. 

Let  it  then  be  a  settled  truth  with  us,  that  infants  who 


SALVATION  OF  INFANTS.  145 

die  and  go  to  heaven,  are  redeemed  from  death  and  hell, 
by  the  blood  of  Calvary — they  are  washed  in  the  same 
fountain  with  their  redeemed  parents,  and  enrobed  with 
them  in  the  same  garments  of  a  Saviour's  righteousness 
— their  sin  is  pardoned  through  the  same  atonement, 
and  they  are  justified  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  Re- 
deemer. 

Reader,  have  I  your  judgement — I  know  I  have  your 
heart — but  have  I  your  understanding — your  head  with 
me  in  this  conclusion  ?  I  scorn  to  take  advantage  of  your 
tender  feeling.  Let  reason  and  judgement  be  convinced. 
Before  we  proceed,  let  us  be  agreed  here.  For  it  may 
perhaps  turn  out,  that  from  the  inevitable  consequences 
of  admitting  the  above  truth,  you  may  wish  to  flinch 
hereafter.  Hence  my  deep  anxiety  to  carry  your  most 
deliberate  and  thorough  convictions  with  me.  Please 
to  turn  back  and  inspect  afresh,  the  two  preceeding  re- 
marks ;  if  you  are  fully  convinced  of  their  truth,  we  shall 
proceed. 

SECTION  III. 
Only  Sinners  can  be  saved. 

Jesus  Christ  came  to  save  sinners,  and  he  finished  the 
work  given  to  him  by  the  Father.  "  I  came  not  to  call 
the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance."  "  To  seek 
and  to  save  that  which  was  lost."  "I  am  not  sent  but 
to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  "  They  thzt 
are  whole,  have  no  need  of  the  physician  ;  but  they,  tfiat 
are  sick."  "This  thy  brother  was  dead  and  is  alive 
again,  he  was  lost  andds  found."  No  position  can  be  laid 
down,  more  consonant  with  scripture  and  with  common 
sense,  than  this.     Let  us  look  at  it  in  a  little  of  its  detail. 

(1.)  Repentance  cannot  take  place  except  where  there 
is  sin.  The  reason  is  plain.  Repentence  is  the  mind's 
turning  from  sin  to  God,  with  loathing-  and  abhorence 
of  sin,  and  sorrow  for  it ;  and  love  to  God  and  holiness. 
If  a  being  is  holy  and  free  from  all  sin,  there  is  no  room 
for  repentance — the  thing  is  impossible.  A  man  con- 
not  repent  of  sin  in  which  he  had  no  participation. 
13 


146  INFANT  SALVATION. 

(2.)  Regeneration  is  that  spiritual  change  which  is 
effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  and  upon  the  soul  of  man, 
at  his  conversion.  It  implies  the  soul's  being  in  a  state 
of  spiritual  death.  That  which  is  not  spiritually  dead 
cannot  be  made  spiritually  alive  again.  True,  believers 
"  have  passed  from  death  unto  life."  They  were  dead 
— so  dead,  that  except  they  be  born  again — made  anew 
to  live,  they  could  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Jesus  did  not  come  to  save,  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  those  who  were  always  alive  and  never  were 
dead.  As  a  saviour  he  has  to  do  only  with  the  lost.  If 
any  man  be  not  dead  in  sins,  he  cannot  be  made  alive  in 
Christ.  If  there  is  no  hurt  in  the  daughter  of  my  peo- 
ple, she  has  no  need  of  the  balm  of  Gilead,  and  the 
physician  there.  If  there  be  no  blindness,  there  can  be 
no  restoration  of  sight.  If  there  be  no  disease  in  the 
feet  and  ancle  bones,  there  can  be  no  deliverance  from 
that  lameness. 

(3.)  Pardon  of  sin  implies  its  guilt.  Pardon  is  the 
lifting  up  from  a  person,  of  the  punishment  which  he 
deserves — to  which  by  a  sentence  of  law  he  is  exposed. 
It  is  an  authorative  removal  of  that  punishment,  so  that 
it  cannot  be  inflicted  upon  him.  If  no  sin  is  justly 
charged  upon  a  man,  he  cannot  be  pardoned.  Pardon  is 
an  act  of  sovereignty  ;  but  even  sovereignty  cannot  par- 
don, where  there  is  no  guilt.  Let  the  sovereign  of  a 
nation  offer  pardon  to  a  virtuous,  upright  citizen,  who 
has  offended  no  law,  and  what  will  he  think  ?  How  will 
his  indignation  kindle  ?  Pardon !  for  what  ?  Forgivness  ! 
how  insulting?  No,  even  the  sovereign  of  the  universe, 
cannot  pardon  a  sinless  creature. 

(4.)  For  holy  beings  who  have  never  sinned,  there 
can  be  no  atonement  rendered.  He  who  has  offended 
no  law,  has  no  restitution  to  make  to  an  offended  law  : 
and  he  who  has  no  restitution  to  make  to  violated  law, 
can  have  no  heed  and  no  room,  for  a  friend  to  make  resti- 
tution. Unless  I  am  a  slave  to  offended  justice,  no  man 
can  purchase  my  freedom.  Unless  I  am  a  captive  sold 
under  sin,  no  man  can  pay  the  price  of  my  redemption. 
(5.)  If  any  man  have  the  righteousness  of  the  law  in 
himself,  and  of  himself,  he  cannot  be  justified  through  the 


INFANTS  NEED  SALVATION.  147 

righteousness  of  another.  Whosoever  of  you  are  justi- 
fied by  the  law,  ye  are  fallen  from  grace — i.  e.  from  jus- 
tification by  grace:  this  ye  have  renounced.  Either  the 
meritorious  obedience  of  Christ,  or  that  of  the  man  him- 
self, must  justify  him.  Either,  a  man  must  wear  the 
seamless  robe  of  Immanuei's  righteousness,  or  he  must 
wear  the  tattered  garments  of  his  own.  In  this  case,  he 
is  justified  by  works,  and  receives  heaven  as  his  own 
reward  :  in  that,  he  is  justified  by  grace,  through  faith 
in  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  and  receives  heaven,  as  a 
gift  of  God. 

From  these  particulars  it  is  obvious,  to  a  demonstra- 
tion, that  sinful,  polluted,  condemned,  and  guilty  persons 
only,  can  be  saved,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
Consequently  I  remark, 

SECTION  IV. 

Infants   are   guilty,  condemned,  polluted,  and  sinful 

beings. 

(1.)  If  they  were  not  made  sinners  by  the  disobe- 
dience of  the  one  Adam  ;  they  could  not  be  made  right- 
eous, by  the  obedience  of  the  other.  If  we  maintain 
their  salvation  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  there 
is  no  alternative,  we  must  maintain  their  previous  sin- 
fulness, through  the  disobedience  of  Adam. 

(2.)  Regenerated  and  sanctified,  they  cannot  possibly 
be,  unless  they  were  previously  polluted  and  dead. 
The  Holy  Ghost  cannot  remove  from  them  pollution,  if 
they  have  none.  He  cannot  give  them  holiness,  if  they 
have  it  already.  He  cannot  restore  them  to  life  spirit- 
ual, if  they  have  never  lost  it — unless  they  were  dead, 
they  could  not  be  made  alive  again — unless  they  were 
lost,  they  could  not  be  found.  Here,  also,  there  is  no  eva- 
sion. Either,  you  must  deny  the  doctrine  of  infant  re- 
generation— you  must  deny  that  they  are  born  of  the 
spirit;  or  you  must  admit  that  they  are  by  nature,  dead 
in  trespasses  and  sins.  "  There  is  no  regeneration,  or 
renovation,"  says  Richard  Baxter,  "but  from  sin."  On 
this  point,  the  fact  of  infant  circumcision  and  baptism,  con- 


148  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

stitute  a  cogent  argument.     It  was  pressed  upon  Pelagius 
and  his  followers,  by  Augustine  and  others,  with  over- 
powering effect.     Pelagius  denied  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal  sin.     "Therefore,   we  conclude,"   says   his   friend 
Julian,  •'  that  the  triune  God,  should  be  adored  as  most 
just,  and  it  has  been  made  to   appear  most  irrefragably, 
that  the  sin  of  another,   never  can  be   imputed  to  little 
children."     And  again,  "  Hence,  that  is  evident,   which 
we  defend  as  most  reasonable,  that  no  one  is  born  in  sin, 
and  that  God  never  judges  man  to  be  guilty,  on  account 
of  his  birth."     Pelagius  was  bearded  with  the  fact  that 
children  are  "  baptised  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  he 
could  never  meet  the  argument,  yet  could   he  never  es- 
cape from  it.     He   expressed  great  indignation,   never- 
theless, at  a  report  which  took   the  air,   that  he   denied 
infant  baptism  ;   affirming  in  strong  terms,  the  falsehood 
of  the  report;  and  that  he  maintained  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, according  to  the  universal  custom  of  the  church. 
But  now,  if  baptism   means  any  thing  at  all,   it  means 
that  those  who  are  washed,  were  polluted.    "  I  will  pour 
water  upon   him  that  is  thirsty — I  will  pour  my  Spirit 
upon  thy   seed,   my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring." — 
Cleansing,  by  the  blood  and  spirit  of  Christ,  is  most  un- 
questionably   intended,    in    the    ordinance    of  baptism. 
Most  assuredly,  therefore,  the  baptising  of  infants,  which 
has  been  practiced  universally  by  the  church  universal, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  dispensation,   until 
since  the    reformation,    teaches   that  infants  need   to  be 
washed  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  renewed  by  the  spirit 
of  our  God. 

3.  Gratitude  for  pardon,  no  infant  lips  can  ever  utter, 
unless  it  has  been  condemned,  and  held  liable  to  punish- 
ment. The  fact  of  infant  lips  being  engaged  in  praising 
redeeming  love,  is  therefore  conclusive  evidence,  that 
they  feel  themselves  indebted  to  Jesus  for  their  redemp- 
tion— that  they  have  received  through  him  the  remission 
of  sins — that  He  suffered  for  them  the  pains  of  death — 
that  He  made  for  them  an  efficient  atonement — rendered 
a  full  satisfaction  to  the  injured  law.  Let  me  close  this 
argument  by  a  quotation  from  "  the  Vindication,"  102. 
103. 


INFANTS  NEED  SALVATION.  149 

"  Against  this  doctrine  [which  denies  original  sin] 
Richard  Baxter  directed  his  mighty  pen.  Works,  Vol. 
xiii.  91,  &c.  "You  cannot,"  says  he,  "  exempt  in- 
fants themselves  from  sin  and  misery  without  exempt- 
ing them  from  Christ  the  Redeemer  and  the  remedy. " 
He  then  pours  forth  more  than  half  a  page  of  texts, 
and  proceeds  :  "  If  infants  have  no  sin  and  misery, 
then  they  are  none  of  the  body,  the  church,  which 
Christ  loved  and  gave  himself  for,  that  he  might  cleanse 
it."  You  will  observe  how  specifically  he  fastens  down 
sin  as  well  as  misery  upon  infants,  and  then  he  men- 
tions the  guilt  and  the  punishment  of  sin  in  the  case 
of  infants.  "  But  what  need  we  further  proof,  when 
we  have  the  common  experience  of  all  the  world  ? 
Would  every  man  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  without  ex- 
ception, so  early  manifest  sin  in  the  life,  if  there  were 
no  corrupt  disposition  at  the  heart  ?  And  would  all  man- 
kind, without  exception,  taste  of  the  punishment 
of  sin,  if  they  had  no  participation  of  sin,  if  they 
had  no  participation  of  the  guilt?  "Death  is  the 
wages  of  sin ;  and  by  sin1  death  entered  into  the 
world,  and  it  passeth  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned."  Rom.  v,  12.  Infants  have  sickness,  and  tor- 
ments, and  death,  which  are  the  fruits  of  sin.  And 
were  they  not  presented  to  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  when 
he  took  them  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them,  and  said 
"of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven?"  Certainly 
none  that  never  were  guilty,  nor  miserable,  are  capa- 
ble of  a  place  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Mediator.  For  to 
what  end  should  he  mediate  for  them?  or  how  should  he 
redeem  them  that  need  not  a  redemption?  or  how  should 
he  reconcile  them  to  God,  that  never  were  at  enmity 
with  him?  or  how  can  he  wash  them  that  never  were 
unclean  ?  when  the  whole  have  no  need  of  the  physici- 
an. Matt./ix.  12.  He  "  came  to  seek,  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost."  Luke  xix.  10.  and  to  save  "  the  peo- 
ple from  their  sins,"  Matt.  i.  21.  They  are  none  of  his 
saved  people  therefore,  that  had  no  sin.  He  came  "  to 
redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law."  Gal.  iv.  5. 
But  it  is  most  certain  that  infants  were  under  the  law, 
as  well  as  the  adult:  and  they  were  apart  of  "his people 
13* 


150  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

Israel,  whom  he  visited  and  redeemed."  Luke  i.  68. 
If  ever  they  be  admitted  into  glory,  they  must  praise 
him,  "  that  redeemed  them  by  his  blood."  Rev.  v.  9. 
[p.  94,]  "Infants  then,  are  sinners,  or  none  of  those  that 
he  came  to  save.  Christ  hath  made  no  man  righteous 
by  his  obedience,  but  such  as  Adam  made  sinners  by  his 
disobedience, "«—"  There  is  no  regeneration,  or  renova- 
tion, but  from  sin,"  [p.  95]  "  If  they  think  that  any  in- 
fants are  saved,  it  is  either  by  covenant,  or  without ; 
there  is  some  promise  for  it,  or  there  is  none."  [96] 
He  concludes.  "  By  the  fulness  of  this  evidence,  it  is 
easy  to  see,  that  infants  and  all  mankind  are  sinners, 
and  therefore  have  need  of  a  Redeemer." 

Richard  Baxter  then,  hath  fully  taught,  1.  That  in- 
fants are  polluted  and  need  regeneration.  2.  Are  dead 
spiritually  and  need  regeneration.  3,  are  guilty,  liable 
to,  punishment,  and  can  be  pardoned. 

Thus  the  salvation  of  infant  humanity  contains  evi- 
dence irresis table,  that  it  was  lost.  Thedoctrine  of  ori- 
ginal sin,  both  as  to  pollution  and  guilt,  is  presupposed 
by  the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation.  They  stand  or  fall 
together.  He  that  denies  the  presence  of  the  poison, 
must  as  a  rational  man,  reject  the  antidote. 
In  closing  this  argument  let  us  remark  : 
1.  The  whole  question  relative  to  the  state  of  infants, 
is  of  importance  chiefly — almost  solely,  because  of  its 
connexion  with  the  more  general  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  and  so  with  the  more  general  doctrine  of  legal  impu- 
tation. As  to  those  who  die  in  infancy,  it  can  only  af- 
fect them  so  far  as  the  prayer  of  faith  and  piety  is  in- 
strumental in  their  salvation.  Those  who  believe  their 
infant  offspring  to  be  under  the  curse  by  nature,  do  also 
believe  that  the  same  principles  of  law,  by  which  they 
were  brought  to  this  wretched  condition,  are  applied  in 
the  covenant  of  grace,  and  do  secure  their  redemption  ; 
a  means  towards  which,  is,  diligence,  faith  and  prayer, 
on  the  part  of  their  parents.  And  hence,  the  general, 
and,  as  I  suppose,  notorious  fact,  that  those  parents 
who  feel,  that  they  themselves  have  been  the  means  of 
bringing  their  dear  babes  under  the  curse,  by  being  the 
connecting  links   between  them  and  Adam,  do  also  feel 


INFANT  NEED  SALVATION.  151 

an  awful  and  solemn  responsibility  resting  upon  their 
souls,  viz  :  the  obligation  to  be  the  means  of  bringing 
their  beloved  offspring  into  the  new  covenant,  that  they 
may  enjoy  the  blessing. 

2.  We  see  from  this  argument,  the  atheistical  ten- 
dency of  the  Pelagian  scheme,  or  that  system  which 
denies  original  sin — which  denies  that  infants,  before 
they  sin  personally  themselves,  are  sinners  under  con- 
demnation. I  say,  the  tendency  of  the  system  is  athe- 
istical. To  be  convinced  of  this,  you  have  only  to  sit 
down  with  these  doctrines  before  you,  at  the  cradle  of 
expiring  infancy.  Mark  there  the  inward  struggle,  the 
outward  contortion,  the  deep  heaving  sigh  of  that  ten- 
der bosom,  the  wild  rolling  eye,  the  quivering  lip,  the 
agonizing  shriek,  the  dying  groan,  the  parting  breath  ; 
and  tell  me,  is  there  a  righteous  God  ?  This  child  has 
no  sin  upon  him  in  any  sense  ;  wherefore  these  suffer- 
ings ?  If  love  and  beauty,  and  innocence,  and  holiness 
can  thus  suffer,  who  governs  the  world  1  Who  gives 
life  and  takes  it  thus  away  ?  Cruel  monster  !  that  can 
thus  sport  with  agonies  unutterable  !  !  Can  spotless 
justice  and  almighty  power  dwell  with  him  !  !  ! 

Either  then,  infants  are  justly  liable  to  suffer  pain  and 
sorrow  and  death,  or  there  is  no  God. 

3.  What  a  dreadful  evil  must  sin  be  !  which  thus 
brings  down  the  tokens  of  Heaven's  displeasure,  thou- 
sands of  years  after  its  perpetration  !  One  single  trans- 
gression of  God's  law,  has  brought  an  entire  race — 
myriads  of  millions  of  immortal  minds,  under  the  ven- 
geance of  an  Almighty  arm  !  What  then  must  be  our 
final  doom,  seeing  such  effects  follow  from  one  sin  ;  if 
we  add  thousands  of  actual  transgressions  to  the  sin  of 
our  nativity,  and  crown  the  whole  by  trampling  under 
foot  the  law  of  God,  accounting  the  blood  of  his  cove- 
nant an  unholy  thing,  and  doing  despite  to  the  spirit  of 
his  grace  !  ! 

Forbid  it  gracious  Heaven.  Amen  and  Amen. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  UTTER  INABILITY  OF  MAN,  IN  HIS  FALLEN  STATE,  TO 

MEET  THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF  LAW,  AND  THEREBY  TO 

RESTORE  HIMSELF  TO  THE  FAVOUR  OF  GOD. 

SECTION   I. 

The  general  notion  of  Ability  and  Inability. 

These  terms  are  of  opposite  significations,  and  there- 
fore, the  exposition  of  one,  will  afford  the  true  idea  of 
the  other  also.     But  there  are  few  words  so  difficult  to  un- 
derstand, as  ability  and   inability  ;  and   that,  because  of 
the  intrinsic  difficulty  of  the  subject.     How  do  we  ac- 
quire the  idea  of  ability,  or  power?  is  a  question  which 
has  vexed  the  world  of  philosophers  no  little.     Toward 
procuring  a  correct  response,  let  us  remark,  1  st.  Power  or 
ability  (for  I  use  them  as  synonomous)  is  a  relative  idea. 
That  is,  it  has   reference  to   something  to   be  done,  or 
resisted.     We  can  have  no  notion  of  power,  but  relative- 
ly to  action,  for  the  accomplishment  of  something;  or  of 
passive  resistance.     Power,  to  do  what?  Ability,  to  re- 
sist what  ?  Therefore  2.  The  notion  of  power  seems  to 
be  derived  from  the  perception  of  changes,  occurring  in 
things  without  us,  and  thoughts  and   feelings  within  us. 
This  appears  to  have  been  the  idea  of  Mr.  Locke  ;  ana 
therefore  he  distinguishes  it  into  active  and  passive  pow- 
er:  or,  as  subsequent  philosophers  have  improved  the 
phraseology,  into  power  and  susceptibility.     If  this  be 
correct — if  our  notion  of  power  is  relative  to  changes 
perceived  by  us,  we  learn   3.   The  notion  of  cause  and 
effect. 

Changes  that  are  seen  or  felt,  in  frequent  connexion 
with  each  other  especially  if  they  occur  in  the  same 
order — are,  by  a  very  general  law  of  the  mind,  deemed 
to  have  a  necessary  connexion  ;  so  that  the  one  must  be 
followed  by  the  other.     Whilst  we  are  entirely  ignorant 


ABILITY    AND    INABILITY.  153 

of  what  it  is,  yet  we  are  necessitated  to  believe,  that 
there  is  something  in  the  one  adapting,  or  suiting  it  to 
be  the  predecessor  of  the  other.  This  adaptation,  we  call 
the  power  or  ability  in  the  cause,  to  produce  the  effect. 
For  example,  we  observe  a  change  takes  place  on  the 
snow,  whenever  the  warm  sunshine  lights  upon  it.  It 
liquifies  and  runs  off,  in  the  form  of  water.  This  is  the 
effect,  and  that  is  the  cause.  There  is  a  poiver  in  the 
sun's  rays  to  melt  snow.  A  man  stoops  and  grasps 
a  fifty-six  pound  weight  with  his  hand,  and  straightens 
himself  up.  The  weight  rises  off  the  ground.  He  has 
power  to  lift  it.  But  now  the  man  grasps  a  ton  weight, 
and  endeavors  to  straighten  himself,  and  does  not ;  he  is 
not  able,  he  has  not  power  to  lift  a  ton.  Again,  he  con- 
structs a  compound  lever,  or  a  pulley  and  tackle,  and 
applies  it  to  the  ton,  and  lifts  it:  he  has  ability  to  lift  a 
ton.  Now  these  two  propositions,  viz  :  a  man  is  able 
to  lift  a  ton  :  and,  a  man  is  unable  to  lift  a  ton— both  are 
true  :  and  yet  they  appear  contradictory.  Evidently, 
therefore,  the  term  ability,  is  used  in  different  senses. 
In  the  former,  it  refers  to  physical  ability,  in  the  latter, 
to  intellectual,  so  to  speak,  or  mechanical,  combined 
with  physical  ability.  The  particular  kind  of  power, 
must  depend  upon  the  particular  nature  of  the  change 
effected.  Ability  is  a  relative  idea.  Causes  and  effects 
have  a  natural  adaptation  or  suitableness,  one  to  the  other. 
If  this  could  be  kept  steadfastly  in  mind,  it  appears  to 
me,  it  would  deliver  us  from  a  vast  amount  of  confusion 
on  this  subject.  All  kinds  of  power  or  ability,  imply 
some  obstacle,  opposition,  or  counterbalancing  power,  or 
force.  I  can  form  no  idea,  notion,  conception,  or  thought 
of  power,  without  having  express  reference  to  some  kind, 
or  character  of  resistance,  or  force  to  be  overcome  by  it 
— some  change  to  be  effected.  The  attempt  to  form 
such  an  idea,  is  an  attempt  to  conceive  of  a  pair  of  bal- 
ances, with  but  one  scale.  Now  the  denomination  of 
the  power,  depends  upon  the  nature  of  this  related  force 
— the  character  of  the  ability  is  ascertained,  only  from 
the  nature  of  the  change  effected.  If  it  be  a  change 
upon  mere  inert  matter,  as  the  change  upon  the  snow, 
by  the  sun's  action,  it  is  mere  physical  power.     If  it  be 


154  ABILATY  AND  INABILITY. 

a  change  upon  mind,  wherein  ignorance  has  given  place 
to  knowledge,  it  is  intellectual  power.  If  it  be  a  change 
upon  the  moral  feelings,  it  is  moral  power. 

Now  these  three  are  clearly  distinct.  That  ability, 
or  power,  by  which  the  man  lifted  the  half  hundred 
weight,  is  physical  or  natural  ability :  and  no  man  can 
be  at  any  loss  to  distinguish  it  from  that  intellectual 
ability,  which  is  exerted  in  planning  and  calculating  the 
power  of  a  compound  lever  or  tackle,  or  the  distance  of 
a  planet,  or  the  duration  of  an  eclipse  of  the  sun.  And 
yet,  in  these  latter  operations,  the  former  power  is  in 
requisition  :  for  by  it  he  makes  the  figures  of  his  calcu- 
lation. But  surely  no  man  will  say  that  it  was  physical 
ability  that  calculated  the  eclipse,  or  intellectual  ability 
that  held  the  pencil,  and  marked  the  characters  on  the 
slate.  Moreover,  as  we  have  seen,  chap.  i.  sec.  v. 
vi.  rational  intelligence,  or  intellectual  power,  may 
exist,  and  that  in  connexion  with  volition,  apart  from 
moral  agency.  There  must  be,  sec.  vii.  also  moral 
poiuer — an  ability  to  perceive  a  right  and  a  wrong  in 
intelligent  action.  Until  the  rational  being,  who  has 
also  physical  power,  possess  this  moral  sense,  having  no 
moral  power,  he  is  of  course  not  a  moral  agent.  Animal 
appetites  may  operate  as  motives,  leading  him  to  act  in 
the  use  of  means  to  gratify  themselves,  but  until  he  is 
able  to  distinguish  a  rig/it  and  a  wrong  morally,  that  is, 
in  reference  to  God's  law,  he  cannot  be  influenced  by 
motives  of  a  moral  nature.  But  as  the  Creator  has  en- 
dued man  with  such  power,  and  as  this,  though  in  an 
impaired  stat?,  still  abides  with  him,  he,  of  course,  is  ac- 
countable for  its  exercise.  Now,  to  the  existence  of 
moral  power,  intellectual  power  is  necessary,  and  to  the 
manifestation  of  each,  physical  power  is  equally  indis- 
pensable. That  is,  a  man  must  have  natural  ability 
in  order,  not  to  the  exercise  of  intellectual  and  of  moral 
ability,  but  to  the  manifestation  of  that  exercise.  The 
soul  may  reason,  and  its  moral  qualities  be  called  into 
action,  independent  of  mere  physical  power — as  after 
death — but  as  its  actions  are  made  known  in  this  state, 
only  by  th?  physical  powe  s  of  the  body,  these  are  ne- 
cessary to  communicate  the  knowledge  of  its  operations. 


ABILITY  AND  INABILITY.  155 

But  their  possession  does  not  involve  the  other.     It  can- 
not be  said  of  a  horse,  that  he  has  physical   ability^  to 
calculate  an  eclipse,  or  to  obey  the  moral  law  of  God. 
He  lias  more  natural  ability  than  a  man  has,  but  physi- 
cal ability  cannot,  without  ridiculous  absurdity,  be  af- 
firmed to  be  the  antecedent  cause  of  intellectual  or  of 
moral  effects.     It  is  surely,  no   more  absurd  to  affirm, 
that  a  horse  has  natural  ability  to  calculate  an  eclipse  ; 
than  to  affirm,  that  a  man  has  natural,  or  even  intellec- 
tual, ability  to  obey  the  moral  law  of  God.     The  horse 
has  strength,  more  than   need  be   expended  in   making 
the  figures  of  the  calculation  ;  but  then,  the  expenditure 
of  this  kind  of  ability,  in  no  conceivable  degree,  could 
secure   the  effect  required,  viz  :    the  calculation   of  an 
eclipse.     The  man  has  physical  and  intellectual  ability, 
more  than  are  requisite  to  be  expended  in  keeping  many 
of  the  moral  precepts  of  the  law,  but  no  possible  amount 
of  expenditure  of  such  power,  could  secure  the  effect  re- 
quired ;    viz:    moral    obedience.      Nothing    but   moral 
power   can  be  the  antecedent  cause   of  moral  effects: 
nothing  but  intellectual  power   can  be   the  antecedent 
cause  of  intellectual  effects  :  nothing  but  physical  power 
can  be  the  antecedent  cause  of  physical  effects.     To  af- 
firm that  a  horse  has  physical  power  to  draw  a  train   of 
cars  on  a  rail  road,  is  to  speak  truth  and  common  sense. 
But  to  affirm  that  a  horse  has  physical   power  to  run  a 
line  of  levels,  and  calculate  the  proper   grading  of  the 
road,  is  to  sin  against  truth  and  common   sense.     And 
why  ?  Simply,  because,  it  is  asserting  the  connexion  of 
things,  as  cause  and  effect,  which  are  not  so  connected, 
nor  can  be.     Now,  I  aver,   that  it  is  equally  absurd  to 
affirm,  that  man  has  natural  ability  to  keep  the  moral 
law !  natural  ability  to  exercise  moral  causation  ! !  na- 
tural ability  to  love  God  and  man  !  !  ! 

We  are  told,  that  it  requires  no  more  natural  ability 
to  love  God,  than  to  hate  him.  No  truly  ;  and  it  re- 
quires no  more  moral  ability  to  be  an  ass,  than  an  ele- 
phant :  and  it  requires  no  more  intellectual  power  to  be 
a  clod,  than  a  paving  stone.  There  is  probably,  less 
natural  and  intellectual  ability  in  Gabriel,  than  in  Satan. 
But  what  hence  results  ?    Why,  this — that  no  measure 


156  DISTINCTION  OF  NATURAL 

of  ability  can  go  beyond  its  own  kind.  If  physical  and 
intellectual  power  could  secure  moral  results,  the  devil 
would  probably  be  above  the  mightiest  and  the  holiest 
angel  in  heaven.  But,  inasmuch  as  love  to  God,  is  a 
moral  effect,  it  never  can  proceed  from  these  powers  of 
Satan,  for  they  are  not  moral.  The  general  notion  of 
ability  then,  is,  that  quality  or  those  qualities  in  a 
cause  which  being  appropriately  used,  produces  its  ef- 
fect. A  man's  ability  to  lift  a  stone,  lies  in  the  muscles 
and  bones  &c,  of  his  physical  frame.  His  ability  to 
calculate  an  eclipse,  lies  in  his  intellectual  powers,  as 
developed  by  his  education.  His  ability  to  love  God 
and  his  neighbour,  lies  in  his  moral  powers  of  percep- 
tion and  feeling,  as  developed  and  sanctified  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  who,  therein,  sheds  abroad  the  love  of  God  in 
his  heart. 

SECTION  II. 

The  common  distinction  of  natural  and  moral  in- 
ability staled. 

"  We  are  said  to  be  naturally  unable  to  do  any  thing, 
when  we  cannot  do  it,  if  we  will,  because,  what  is  most 
commonly  called  nature,  does  not  allow  of  it,  or  because 
of  some  impeding  defect  or  obstacle  that  is  extrinsic  to 
the  will  ;  either  in  the  faculty  of  understanding,  consti- 
tution of  body,  or  external  objects.  Moral  inability 
consists,  not  in  any  of  these  things ;  but  either  in  the 
want  of  inclination  ;  or  the  strength  of  a  contrary  incli- 
nation ;  or  the  want  of  sufficient  motives  in  view,  to  in- 
duce and  excite  the  act  of  the  will  ;  or  the  strength  of 
apparent  motives  to  the  contrary.  Or  both  these  may 
be  resolved  into  one ;  and  it  may  be  said  in  one  word ; 
that  moral  inability  consists  in  the  opposition  or  want  of 
inclination.  For  when  a  person  is  unable  to  will,  or 
choose  such  a  thing,  through  a  defect  of  motives,  or 
prevalence  of  contrary  motives,  it  is  the  same  thing  as 
being  unable,  through  the  want  of  an  inclination,  or  the 
prevalence  of  a  contrary  inclination,  in  such  circumstan- 
ces, and  under  the  influence  of  such  views."     Edwards' 


AND  MORAL  INABILITY.  157 

works,  ii.  35.  Natural  inability,  this  great  theologian 
divides  into  two  parts,  viz  :  "  because  nature  does  not 
allow  of  it,"  and  "  because  of  some  impeding  defect." 
But  in  breaking  down  the  latter  into  the  three  particulars, 
he  includes  one,  which,  it  appears  to  me,  comes  in  un- 
der the  prohibition  of  nature.  The  impeding  obstacle 
or  defect  lies,  either  in  the  faculty  of  understanding, 
constitution  oibody,  or  external  objects.  Nature  does 
not  allow  a  man  to  live  in  water,  or  a  fish  on  land. 
This  is  a  natural  inability.  The  natural  man  discerneth 
not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for  they  are  foolish- 
ness unto  him  :  neither  can  he  know  them,  [xai  6v  8vvatai 
yvuvcu~]  and  he  is  not  able  to  know  them."  1  Cor.  n.  15. 
This,  according  to  Edwards  here,  is  a  natural  inability: 
for  it  is  the  inability  of  a  natural  man  :  and  it  arises  from 
"  some  impeding  defect  or  obstacle,  in  the  faculty  of 
understanding."  Mephibosheth  was  naturally  unable 
to  go  out  and  meet  David,  because  of  bodily  constitution 
— he  was  lame.  Saul  was  unable  to  seize  David  and 
put  him  to  death,  because  of  external  hindrances. 

Moral  Inability  Edwards  makes  to  be  simply  the 
absence  of  a  will — it  "consists  in  the  opposition  or  want 
of  inclination" — unwillingness.  "A  drunkard,  he  says, 
under  s.:ch  and  such  circumstances,  may  be  unable  to 
forbear  taking  strong  drink" — he  is  unwilling  to  abstain 
— because  of  the  "  prevalence  of  contrary  motives." 
If  the  writer  does  not  labour  under  a  natural  inability 
*.'  in  the  faculty  of  understanding:,"  this  distinction 
simply  is,  that,  moral  inability  is  a  wantofivillingness; 
and  natural  inability  is  opposition  of  nature  rendering 
the  thing  impossible  ;  or  defect  in  our  intellectual,  or 
bodily  powers,  rendering  it  impossible  to  us. 

This  distinction  has  been  thought  of  great  importance 
in  treating  of  man's  moral  agency  in  his  present  fallen 
condition.  It  is  often  maintained,  that  man  has  a  natu- 
ral ability — that  is,  he  has  all  the  powers  of  body  and 
mind — (not  the  faculties  simply,  but  the  power  of  exer- 
cising them)  necessary  to  enable  him  to  fulfill  all  moral 
duty  ;  he  lacks  only  the  moral  ability — the  will :  and  if 
he  had  this  moral  ability  or  will,  he  would  have  all  that 
is  necessary  to  fulfil  the  whole  law  of  God.  This,  it  is 
14 


158  ABILATY  AND  INABILITY. 

thought,  indispensible  to  maintain,  in  order  to  sustain 
his  agency.  It  is  feared,  that  if  the  total  inability  of 
man  to  save  himself  and  lead  a  holy  life,  is  set  before 
him,  it  will  discourage  effort,  and  seal  him  up  in  a  state 
of  antinomian  fatalism  :  hence  some  kind  of  ability 
must  be  asserted  in  order  to  encourage  to  effort  and 
counteract  the  tendency  to  apathy.  If  this  be  not  the 
historical  fact,  as  to  the  distinction,  it  is  at  least  un- 
questionably the  present  use  of  it.  Men  are  told  that 
they  are  able,  whensoever  they  will,  to  make  them  a 
new  heart,  and  to  lead  a  life  of  holy  obedience.  This 
suggests. 

SECTION  III. 

Objections  to  the  natural  ability  and  moral  inability 

doctrine. 

1.  To  speak  of  inability  of  will  is  an  abuse  of  lan- 
guage. Edwards  felt  and  acknowledged  this,  [ii.  37.] 
For  after  stating  the  distinction  he  says,  "  But  it  must 
be  observed  concerning  moral  inability,  in  each  kind 
of  it,  that  the  word  inability  is  used  in  a  sense  very 
diverse  from  its  original  import.  The  word  signifies 
only  a  natural  inability,  in  the  proper  use  of  it ;  and  is 
applied  to  such  cases  only  wherein  a  present  will  or 
inclination  to  the  thing,  with  respect  to  which  a  person 
is  said  to  be  unable,  is  supposeable."  He  proceeds  to 
show  the  impropriety  of  predicating  inability  of  the 
will.     And, 

2.  The  absurdity  of  this  is  my  second  objection 
against  the  doctrine.  And  this  absurdity  no  man  has 
better  exposed  than  Edwards  himself,  ii.  38.  Having 
defined  freedom  and  liberty  to  be  "The power,  oppor- 
tunity or  advantage  that  any  one  has,  to  do  as  he 
pleases,1''  he  says — "  then  it  will  follow,  that  in  pro- 
priety of  speech,  neither  Liberty,  nor  its  contrary,  can 
properly  be  ascribed  to  any  being  or  thing,  but  that 
which  has  such  a  faculty,  power,  or  property,  as  is 
called  a  will.  For  that  which  is  possessed  of  no  ivill, 
cannot  have  any  power  or  opportunity  of  doing  accord- 


ABILITY  AND  INABILITY.  159 

ing  to  its  will,  nor  be  necessitated  to  act  contrary  to 
its  will,  nor  be  restrained  from  acting  agreeably  to  it. 
And  therefore  to  talk  of  Liberty  or  the  contrary,  as  be- 
longing to  the  very  will  itself,  is  not  to  speak  good 
sense;  if  we  judge  of  sense,  and  nonsense,  by  the  ori- 
ginal and  proper  signification  of  words. — For  the  will 
itself,  is  not  an  Agent  that  has  a  will:  the  power  of 
choosing,  itself,  has  not  a  power  of  choosing.  That 
which  has  the  power  of  volition  is  the  man,  or  the 
soul,  and  not  the  power  of  volition  itself.  And  he  that 
has  the  liberty  of  doing  according  to  his  will,  is  the 
Agent  who  is  possessed  of  the  will;  and  not  the  will 
which  he  is  possessed  of." 

These  sentiments  Edwards  borrowed  from  Locke, 
whose  doctrines  ought  to  have  prevented  much  contro- 
versy and  contention.  He  had  perceived  the  confusion 
resulting  from  our  speaking  of  the  faculties  of  the  mind, 
by  a  kind  of  personification — intimating  "  that  this  way 
of  speaking  of  faculties,  has  misled  many  into  a  confus- 
ed notion  of  so  many  distinct  agents  in  us,  whieh  had 
their  several  provinces  and  authorities,  and  did  com- 
mand and  obey,  and  perform  several  actions,  as  so 
many  distinct  beings" — B.  2.  C.  21.  s.  6.  Whereas 
the  truth  is,  the  will  of  man,  is  the  mind  or  soul  exer- 
cising choice,  and  the  whole  action  of  the  mind  in  thus 
choosing,  is  called  volition.  Hence  Mr.  Locke,  shows, 
as  Edwards  above,  that  "Liberty  belongs  not  to  voli- 
tion."— "  Suppose,"  says  he,  "  a  man  carried,  whilst 
fast  asleep,  into  a  room,  where  is  a  person  he  longs  to 
see  and  speak  with  ;  and  be  there  locked  fast  in,  be- 
yond his  power  to  get  out;  he  wakes,  and  is  glad  to 
find  himself  in  so  desirable  company,  which  he  stays 
willingly  in,  i.  e.  prefers  his  staying  to  going  away:  I 
ask,  is  not  this  stay  voluntary?  I  think  nobody  will 
doubt  it;  and  yet  being  locked  fast  in,  it  is  evident  he 
is  not  at  liberty  not  to  stay,  he  has  not  freedom  to  be 
gone.  So  that  liberty  is  not  an  idea,  belonging  to  voli- 
tion, or  preferring,  but  to  the  person  having  the  power 
of  doing,  or  forbearing  to  do,  according  as  the  mind 
shall  choose  or  direct."  n.  21,  10.  And  in  14,  he  re- 
jects the  question  whether  man's  will  be  free  or  no? 


160  DISTINCTION  OF  ABILITY. 

as  unreasonable  and  unintelligible — like  the  question 
whether  a  man's  sleep  be  swift  or  his  virtue  square — 
"  liberty  being  as  little  applicable  to  the  will,  as  swift- 
ness or  motion  is  to  sleep,  or  squareness  to  virtue." 

It  seems  then,  that  neither  ability  nor  freedom  can, 
with  any  propriety,  be  predicated  of  the  ivill.  They 
are  both  attributes  of  persons  and  not  attributes  of  attri- 
butes. But  if  freedom  and  ability  cannot  be  ascribed  to 
the  will,  neither  can  bondage  and  inability  be  so  predi- 
cated. What  could  be  meant  by  a  bond  or  enslaved 
will?  What  by  a  will  disabled  I  Hence  to  call  the  mere 
absence  of  choice— the  want  of  a  preference  in  the 
mind,  by  the  name  of  inability,  is  at  once  to  abuse  lan- 
guage and  to  introduce  confusion  of  thought,  to  the  great 
perplexity  of  the  subject,  and  the  injury  of  truth  and 
sound  philosophy. 

3.  This  distinction  is  useless — it  relieves  the  subject 
of  morals  and  relgion  of  no  difficulty.  The  purpose  for 
which  it  is  introduced;  viz:  to  constitute  the  basis  of  mor- 
al agency,  is  not  subserved  by  it.  We  have  seen  the 
true  ground  and  rule  of  duty  to  lie  in  the  will  of  God, 
made  known  to  man.  The  Creator  originally  endowed 
man  with  certain  powers,  and  prescribed  the  rule  of  ac- 
tion. To  reduce  the  standard  of  moral  obligation  to 
the  present  ability  of  man,  is  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  the  Armerian  scheme.  A  man  cannot  be  bound  to  do, 
what  he  is  unable  to  do — Inability  cancels  moral  obliga- 
tion. Ability — present  ability  is  the  measure  of  present 
duty.  On  this  let  us  have  a  few  particular  observations. 
(1)  It  will  be  admitted,  that  a  man  is  bound  morally,  "to 
provide  for  those  of  his  own  household."  But  the 
drunken  gambler,  who  has  squandered  away  an  abun- 
dant patrimony,  destroyed  his  health  and  reduced  him- 
self to  a  poor,  weak,  helpless  wretch,  is  not  able  to  pro- 
vide for  his  household  ;  therefore  he  is  not  bound  to 
provide  :  for  no  man  can  be  bound  to  do  what  he  is  un- 
able to  do  !  But  if  a  man  is  not  under  obligation  he  can- 
not sin  against  obligation;  consequently,  the  drunkard's 
present  neglect  of  his  family  is  no  sin  at  all.  (2)  These 
things  being  so,  we  see,  that  sin  is  its  own  apology  and 
its  own  cure.     Its  own  apology,  for  every  thing  but  the 


NATURAL    AND    MORAL  161 

first  act :  and  its  own  cure,  because  whenever  the  disa- 
bilities, resulting  from  it,  are  complete,  it  can  be  no  longer 
sinful.  (3)  As  I  have  elsewhere  observed,  "  Apply 
this  principle  to  the  commercial  transactions  of  society. 
A  man  contracts  a  debt  within  the  compass  of  his  pres- 
ent ability — he  perversely  and  wickedly  squanders  his 
estate,  gambles  away  his  property,  and  disables  himself 
from  payment,  is  he  therefore  not  bound  ?  Is  he  free 
from  moral  obligation  to  pay  it?  Must  justice  break  her 
scales,  and  no  more  hold  up  an  equal  balance,  because 
he  chooses  to  be  a  villain  ?  Oh  no  !  the  children  of  this 
world  are  wise  in  their  generation.  The  merchant  may 
forgive  the  debt ;  but  forgiveness  implies  obligation  to 
pay.  The  master  whose  servant  has  maimed  him- 
self may  omit  to  demand  service  or  to  punish  for  its 
neglect,  but  it  is  an  omission  of  mercy.  The  law  may 
not  prosecute  the  rum-seller  who  poisons  his  neighbour 
into  intemperance  and  ruin — the  beggared  wife  and  chil- 
dren may  be  unable  to  exact  justice  of  him,  but  then 
it  is  because  cupidity  and  lust  are  more  powerful  than 
justice.  (4.)  "  This  principle  is  a  subversion  at  once, 
of  all  moral  government.  Let  it  be  known  throughout 
the  moral  universe,  that  inability  (resulting  from  the 
most  perverse  wickedness)  cancels  moral  obligation,  and 
there  will  henceforth  commence  a  jubilee  in  the  realms 
of  rebellion" — (5.)  But  the  argument  most  conclusive, 
perhaps,  against  this  limit  to  moral  obligation,  is  that 
which  takes  its  advocates  on  their  own  principle.  They 
maintain,  that  man  has  the  natural  ability,  viz:  the  phy- 
sical power,  and  the  intellectual  power — which  qualify 
him  to  obey  all  Gods  commands ;  and  if  he  had  not, 
he  could  not  be  bound  to  obey :  that  is — natural  ability 
qualifies  for  moral  duty  :  and  where  this  is  not,  there 
can  be  no  moral  obligation.  Then  I  say,  if  natural 
inability  cancels  moral  obligation,  much  more  does 
moral  inability  cancel  moral  obligation.  But  now 
they  admit  that  man  labors  under  a  moral  inability,  con- 
sequently, they  much  more  destroy  the  foundations  of 
moral  agency. 

4.  But  should  we  even  wave  all  objections  to  the  ac- 
curacy and  abstract  truth  of  the  distinction,  there   is  a 
14* 


1 62  ABILITY  x 

most  serious  objection  to  its  practical  application.  If 
man  had  natural  ability  to  keep  all  the  divine  commands, 
and  lacked  moral  ability  only,  still  in  applying  the  doc- 
trine, its  advocates  loose  sight  of  the  latter  half  of  it,  so 
that  in  broad  terms,  they  affirm  that  man  is  able  to  meet 
all  the  requisitions  of  God.  Full  ability  is  asserted  and 
insisted  on,  as  indispensible  to  moral  agency.  And 
when  this  belief  exists  in  the  mind,  it  leads  to  many 
ruinous  results,  (a)  It  puffs  up  the  pride  of  the  heart. 
A  man  who  believes  that  he  is  able  to  do  all  that  God  re-, 
quires  of  him,  Avill  of  course  despise  the  proffered  mercy 
of  the  gospel.  "I  was  alive,"  says  Paul,  "  without  the 
law  once."  He  felt  himself  able  to  do  all  things  him- 
self. And  such  is  the  natural  and  necessary  tendency 
of  the  doctrine  that  a  man  has  it  all  in  his  own  power 
and  can  repent  and  believe,  and  be  saved,  just  any  mo- 
ment he  pleases.  This  is  the  general  belief  of  impeni- 
tent men.  This  is  the  broad  road  of  Armenian  anti- 
nomianism,  along  which  the  almost  entire  mass  of  the 
unbelieving  millions,  are  trooping  downward  to  the 
chambers  of  eternal  death.  To  convince  them  of  their 
utter  helplessness — oh,  here  is  the  difficulty,  which  noth- 
ing but  the  almighty  energies  of  the  Holy  Ghost  can 
overcome,  (b.)  When  such  persons  do  become  a  little 
alarmed,  they  ordinarily  put  themselves  upon  severe 
supposed  duties,  and  having  made  a  few  efforts,  they 
suppose  themselves  willing  now  to  use  their  sufficient 
power,  and  speedily  speak  peace  to  themselves,  and 
procure  some  self-deluded  mortal,  like  themselves,  to 
daub  with  untempered  mortar;  and  to  encourage  hopes, 
and  so  they  settle  down  unconverted,  proud  professors 
of  religion ;  they  continue  for  a  little  while  and  then 
wither  away. 

Thus  much,  it  seemed  necessary  to  say.  in  reference 
to  this  metaphysical  ability  doctrine.  The  fearful  hav- 
oc which  both  its  use  and  its  abuse,  have  produced  and 
are  now  producing,  in  the  American  churches,  renders 
it  imperious  upon  all,  who  wish  to  see  the  humbling 
doctrines  of  human  dependence  upon  divine  grace  for 
salvation,  triumphant,  to  hold  it  up  in  the  light  of  sound 
reason  and  sacred  scripture.  The  latter  will  next  claim 
our  attention. 


AND  INABILITY.  163 

SECTION  IV. 
Man's  inability,  as  taught  in  the  Bible. 

We  have  seen,  that  the  metaphysical  distinction  of 
ability,  into  natural  and  moral,  has  no  foundation  in  rea- 
son and  nature  and  man  ;  and  that  its  use  has  been  at- 
tended with  very  mischievous  consequences  to  the 
cause  of  truth  and  of  human  salvation.  Let  us  now 
turn  to  the  sacred  scriptures,  and  ascertain,  if  pos- 
sible, what  they  say  in  reference  to  man's  duty  and 
inability.  And  in  this  enquiry  let  us  be  guided  by  the 
obvious  and  natural  arrangement  before  presented ;  viz  : 
Let  us  enquire  what  the  Bible  says  concerning  the  bod- 
ily, mental  and  moral  powers  or  abilities. 

1.  His  bodily  powers  are  in  a  ruined  state — his  fac- 
ulties are  enfeebled,  and  this  as  a  result  of  his  sin.  And 
here,  it  may  be  well  to  remark,  that  little  is  affirmed  di- 
rectly, of  this  in  the  sacred  scriptures.  The  proofs  are 
rather  indirect.  They  seem  to  assume  the  fact  of  man's 
powers  being  prostrated  by  sin,  as  so  obvious  that  all 
the  race  must  feel  and  confess  it :  and  this  kind  of  as- 
sumed concession  is  stronger  proof  than  any  direct  as- 
sertion. So  the  bible  rarely,  if  ever,  directly  and  formally 
asserts  the  existence  of  God.  yet  it  very  abundantly  tes- 
tifies to  that  fundamental  principle  of  religion.  In  like 
manner  is  assumed,  oftener  at  least,  than  directly  affirm- 
ed, the  doctrine  that  the  bodily  powers  of  the  race  have 
been  injured  by  the  fall.  Among  the  numberless  pas- 
sages to  this  effect,  let  us  advert  to  the  following :  Rom. 
v.  12. **  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world  and  death 
by  sin."  This  has  express  reference  to  the  words  of 
the  covenant,  "  in  the  day  thou  e ate st  thereof,  thou  shalt 
surely  die."  It  is  a  fact,  that  death  is  the  result  of  sin. 
Now,  that  bodily  death  is  included  under  this,  will  not 
be  denied  by  any ;  and  especially  is  it  not  denied  by 
those  whom  we  oppose  here  ;  for  their  policy  has  been 
to  confine  the  threatening  of  the  covenant,  to  the  death 
of  the  body.  The  only  question  is,  whether  death  im- 
plies a  failure  of  the  powers  of  the  body  ;  whether  sick- 


164  INABILITY  ACCORDING 

ness,  feebleness,  the  wasting  of  the  energies  of  the  body 
is  included.     If  this  can  be  admitted — and   how  can  it 
be  denied  ? — then  the  bible  does  teach  physical  inability 
— bodily  infirmity,  as  a  result  of  sin.     The  sorrows  and 
sufferings   of  the    body  have   all    one  common  origin. 
"  Because  thou  hast  harkened  unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife, 
and  hast  eaten  of  the  tree,  of  which  I  commanded  thee, 
saying,  Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  cursed  is  the  ground  for 
thy  sake;    in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of 
thy  life."  Are  not  sickness,  painful  weariness,  faintness, 
and   feebleness  and  all  the    calamities   of  the  body,  in- 
cluded ?  "  Unto  the  woman  he  said,  I  will  greatly  mul- 
tiply thy  sorrow   and  thy  conception."     Can  there  re- 
main  in  any  mind  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  .'     Does  not 
every  one  feel  within  himself  the  evidence   of  sins  en- 
feebling  influence  ?     Do   not  rioting    and  drunkenness, 
chambering  and  wantonness — do  not  all  sensual  indul- 
gences  tend  to  destroy  the  powers  of  nature  ?     Surelv, 
we  waste  time   and   insult  the  common  sense    of  man- 
kind, in  delaying  to   prove  what  needs  no  proof.     No 
man  can  be  ignorant  of  the  facts,  and  of  the  principle, 
that  when  the  talent  is  abused,   it  should  be  taken  from 
the  possessor. 

The  only  thing  necessary  farther,  is  distinctly  to  call 
to  your  notice  the  connexion  between  bodily  disease, 
pains,  and  sorrows,  prostration  and  feebleness,  and  the 
moral  causes  of  them  ;  viz  :  the  sins  of  men,  and  es- 
pecially, our  first  sin.  The  helpless  sorrows  and  suf- 
ferings, and  feebleness,  and  often  death  of  infant  human- 
ity, all  result  from  sin — sin  in  the  first  of  the  race — the 
sin  of  all,  through  their  first  head,  Adam.  The  very 
feebleness — the  loss  of  power — the  derangement  of  our 
faculties,  all  originate  in  sin,  as  their  moral  cause,  and  are 
penal  results  of  it.  The  command,  "take  the  talent  from 
him,"  is  founded  upon  the  fact  of  its  abuse — the  priva- 
tion is  penal — it  is  an  expression  of  displeasure  against 
the  sin  of  misuse.  As  certainly  as  the  sin  of  intemper- 
ance is  followed  by  loss  of  bodily  health,  soundness  of  con- 
stitution, trembling,  feeblenss  mania,  delirium  tremens, 
— that  hell  upon  earth — and  death,   so  certainly  has  the 


TO  THE  BIBLE.  165 

sin  of  Adam  opened   the  door  of  numberless  maladies 
and  paralysed  the  physical  energies  of  the  whole  race. 

2.  Equally  clear  and  humiliating  is  the  truth,  that  the 
intellectual  powers  have  suffered  by  the  fall.  Here  let 
us  particularize. 

(1)  The  fact  of  human  ignorance,  is  as  clearly  exhib- 
ited in  the  scriptures,  as  it  is  set  forth  before  the  eyes  of 
all  men.  Men's  minds,  their  understandings  are  very 
defective.  "  Having  the  understanding  darkened,  be- 
ing alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  through  the  igno- 
rance that  is  in  them,  because  of  the  blindness  of  their 
heart."  Eph.  iv.  18.  A  very  early  display  of  this  ig- 
norance, I  have  already  referred  to.  This  attempt  to 
conceal  themselves  from  the  searching  eye  of  God,  be- 
trays in  our  first  parents,  ignorance  as  well  as  guilt. 
Had  not  "  their  foolish  heart  been  darkened,"  (Rom.  i. 
21)  such  attempt  had  not  been  made  (22,)  "  professing 
themselves  to  be  wise  they  became  fools."  And  the 
Apostle  gives  as  proof  of  it,  their  idolatry,  v.  23.  "And 
changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into  an  im- 
age." So  Isaiah,  lxiv.  18.  "They  have  not  known  nor 
understood  :  for  he  hath  shut  their  eyes,  that  they  cannot 
see,  and  their  hearts  that  they  cannot  understand,  v.  19. 
And  none  considereth  in  his  heart,  neither  is  there 
knowledge  nor  understanding  to  say,  I  have  burned  part 
of  it  in  the  fire,"  and  wilh  a  part  of  the  same  tree  hath 
he  made  a  God.  And  Paul  was  sent,  Acts  xxvi.  18. 
to  the  Gentiles,  "  to  open  their  eyes  and  to  turn  them 
from  darkness  to  light,"  and  Christ  was  raised  from  the 
dead,  v.  23,  "to  shew  light  unto  the  people  and  to  the 
Gentiles."  And  Paul  says,  n.  Cor.  iv.  3,  4.  "  But  if 
our  gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost;  in 
whom  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of 
them  that  believe  not."  It  is  superfluous  to  adduce  scrip- 
ture farther.  The  entire  gospel  scheme,  presupposes  a 
state  of  dreadful  and  soul  destroying  ignorance.  The 
revelation  of  God's  will  and  the  system  of  means  for 
illumination,  presupposes  darkness. 

(2.)  This  darkness — this  ignorance  is  to  man  unaided 
by  supernatural  power,  insuperable.  Man  never  would 
—man  never  could — he  has  not  the  intellectual  power 


166  INABILITY  ACCORDING 

to  overcome    this  ignorance — to   dispel  this   darkness. 
He  labours  under  an  imbecility  of  mind,  to  such  a  de- 
gree as  to  render  it  impossible  for  him  to  discover  the 
true  knowledge  of  God,  and  to  understand  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.    He  has  an  understanding  by  which 
he  can  know  natural  things — can  reason  and  investigate 
truth  and  learn  much  of  God's  wisdom,  displayed  in  the 
works  of  creation — he  can — he  is  able  to  know  the  mor- 
al truths  of  God's  word  as  mere  abstract  propositions — 
he  can  reason  about  them,  but   to  have  a  true,   saving, 
spiritual  apprehension  of  them  is  beyond  his  unaided 
powers.     He  is  not  able  to  know  the  things  of  the  Spir- 
it.    There  is  a  positive  defect  and  inability  in  the  mind. 
i.  Cor.  ii.  14.  "  But  the  natural  man  receiveth   not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God."     By  the  natural  man  here 
is   unquestionably   meant,    the    unregenerate  man— the 
man    in   whose    soul  the  great    work   of  spiritual  illu- 
mination and  regeneration  has  not  been  affected — an  un- 
converted man.     This   is  manifest  from  the  whole  train 
of  the  Apostles   remarks.     In  v.   12,  he  says,   "  Now 
we"  christians,  believers — "have  received,  not  the  spirit 
of  the  world,  but  the  spirit  which  is  of  God,"  and  for 
what  end  was  the  spirit  sent  into  the  hearts  of  these  sin 
ners  ?  For  this  end  precisely,  that  they  might  be  rescued 
from  the  chains  of  ignorance — that  their  inability  of  mind 
might    be  removed — that    the  scales    might   fall   from 
their  eyes — "  that  we  might  know  the  things  that  are 
freely  given   to  us  of  God."     "  Which  things   [of  the 
spirit]  also  we  speak,"  "not  in  the  words  which  man's 
wisdom  teacheth  ;  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth." 
Here  is  a  contrast  between  man's  wisdom  and  its  teach- 
ings, and  the  Spirit's  wisdom  and  his  teachings — "com- 
paring   spiritual  things   with  spiritual.     For  the  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  spirit."     The  natural 
man  is   the  unregenerated  and  unbelieving  man :    as  is 
farther  evident  from  the  contrast  between  him  and   the 
spiritual    man,   v.  15.     The   Apostle   then    goes  on    to 
render  a  reason,  why  the  natural  or  unregenerate   man 
does  not  receive  the  things  of  the  spirit;  and  this  reason 
is  a  most  cogent  one.     He  does  not  receive  them ;   that 
IS?  he  rejects   them,  because  they  are  absurd,  in  his  ap- 


T0  THE    BIBLE.  161 

prehension ;  and  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  the  human 
mind  to  receive  as  truth,  that  which  it  deems  to  be  ab- 
surd— "  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him."  But  this 
raises  another  question.  Why  do  the  things  of  the 
spirit  appear  to  the  unconverted  man  foolishness  ?  Are 
they  not  in  themselves  the  consummation  of  wisdom? 
And  if  so,  how  can  they  be  to  the  sound  understanding 
of  unconverted  men,  foolishness  ?  Wisdom  is  not  folly. 
But  it  may  so  appear  and  be  so  treated,  and  that  even 
by  the  mind  which  in  other  things,  is  not  destitute  of 
powers  of  perception.  Wise  sayings  uttered  in  an  un- 
known tongue,  are  foolishness  to  me.  The  lofty  wis- 
dom of  the  astronomer  is  foolishness  to  the  simple,  un- 
lettered christian.  Because  why  ?  He  cannot  under- 
stand them.  He  has  not  the  powers  of  mind  to  grasp  the 
mighty  thoughts  and  to  comprehend  the  sublime  demon- 
strations. The  things  of  the  Spirit  are  foolishness  to 
the  unrenewed  man,  because,  he  cannot  know  them 
— he  is  6v  SiWrcu  not  able  to  know  them.  Still  the 
question  rolls  back  upon  us.  Why  is  not  the  uncon- 
verted man  able  to  know  the  things  of  the  Spirit?  Has 
he  not  a  clear  and  discriminating  mind  ?  Has  he  not  a 
strong  calculating  head  ?  Can  he  not  reason  correctly, 
after  having  perceived  with  precision  ?  Do  not  uncon- 
verted men  give  us  the  most  illustrious  exhibitions  of 
the  power  of  human  intellect  ?  Are  not  many  of  them 
the  very  giants  of  intellect?  Why  then  are  they  not  able 
to  know  the  things  of  the  Spirit?  This  also,  Paul  meets  ; 
because  these  things  require  a  peculiar  power  of  dis- 
crimination, which  the  unconverted  have  not — "  they 
are  spiritually  discerned:"  and  the  natural  man  is  not 
a  spiritual  man.  Until  he  is  taught  of  God — unless  the 
"eyes  of  his  understandingbe  enlightened,"  Eph.  i.  18, 
he  will  never  see  any  beauty  in  the  son  of  man,  or  wis- 
dom in  the  spirit,  v.  15.  "But  he  that  is  spiritual, 
discerneth  all  the  things  [of  the  Spirit]  yet  he  himself 
is  discerned  of  no  one."  So,  John  viii.  43.  Jesus  asks 
"  why  do  ye  not  understand  my  speech  ?  Even  because 
ye  cannot — ye  are  not  able  to  hear  my  word." 

But  the  knowledge,  of  which  we  here  speak,  is  con- 
nected with  salvation ;  for  none  have   it,  or  can  have  it, 


168  INABILITY  ACC0RD1N 

except  the  spiritual — those  who  are  taught  of  the  spirit. 
Salvation  is  everywhere  connected  with  the  knowledge 
of  Christ,  "  and  this  is  eternal  life,  to  know  thee,  the  only 
true  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  This 
is  equivalent  to  coming  unto  God  or  Christ.  Now  he 
says,  John  vi.  44.  "No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the 
Father  which  hath  sent  me,  draw  him  :  and  I  will  raise 
him  up  at  the  last  day.  It  is  written  in  the  prophets, 
And  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God.  Every  man,  there- 
fore that  hath  heard  and  learned  of  the  Father  cometh 
unto  me."  Here  it  is  manifest  that  being  taught  of 
God  and  having  learned  of  the  Father,  are  equivalent 
phrases  with  conversion,  and   coming  unto  the  Father. 

But  now  the  Redeemer  affirms  explicitly  that  "no  one 
is  able  to  come — ov&cio  Sviurw  i%^iu — to  him  unless  the 
Father  draw  him,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day."  He  most  intimately  connects  the  drawing  of  the 
Father,  with  his  raising  the  body  from  the  dead.  Why 
this  ?  Unless  that  the  Father's  drawing,  is  like  the  Son's 
raising — that  is,  by  a  divine  and  almighty  energy.  And 
this  is  explicitly  shewn  in  the  explanation  he  gives  v.  65. 
"  Therefore  I  said  unto  you,  that  no  man  can  come  un- 
to me,  except  it  were  given  unto  him  of  my  Father," — 
the  coming  to  Jesus  is  given  to  the  sinner:  the  drawing 
is  a  gracious  exercise  of  the  divine  power.  Whenever 
that  energy  is  put  forth  and  the  sinner  is  restored  to 
spiritual  life  :  whenever  he  becomes  a  spiritual  man,  he 
comes  :  but  not  until  then.  The  lame  man  cannot  walk 
and  leap,  until  hfi  is  made  whole  by  a  divine  power. 
True,  he  is  commanded  to  rise  up  and  walk  :  but  it  is 
equally  true,  that  he  cannot— -he  is  not  able,  until  he  is 
restored. 

It  is  well  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  word,  draw. 
is  always  used  in  scripture  as  expressive  of  force  or 
power,  which,  in  the  face  of  resistance,  overcomes. 
Allow  me  to  adduce  all  the  cases:  John  xviii.  10.  Pe- 
ter having  a  sword,  drew  it.  xxi.  6,  11 — "they  were  not 
able  to  draw  the  net" — into  the  ship.  "Peter  drew  the 
net  to  land."  Acts  xvi.  19.  "They  drew  Paul  and  Si- 
las into  the  market  place,  unto  the  rulers."  xxi.  30. 
"  they  took   Paul  and   drew  him   out  of  the   temple." 


TO  THE  BIBLE.  169 

James  n.  6.  "  Do  not  rich  men  oppress  you,  and  draw 
you  before  the  judgement  seats?"  It  is  always  a  draw- 
ing by  force,  and  where  the  thing  drawn,  has  life,  it  is  a 
drawing  against  the  inclinations,  wishes  and  desires. 
The  fishes  floundered  and  resisted — the  prisoners  are 
dragged  against  their  inclination  and  desire.  These  are 
the  only  cases,  except  the  one  before  us,  and  the  parallel 
passage,  chap.  xii.  32,  where  Christ  says,  "  And  I,  if  I 
be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  [my  people]  unto  me" — where 
the  drawing  is  the  same  as  here.  Now,  the  uniform 
use  of  the  word  teaches  us  the  important  truth,  that 
man  before,  and  at  the  time  the  gospel  net  is  thrown 
around  him,  is  indisposed  to  come  to  Jesus — and  when 
he  feels  himself  enclosed  by  it,  and  the  truths  of  God's 
word  begin  to  cramp  him  up,  he  resists  and  flounces  and 
tights  against  God,  until  the  divine  Spirit  changes  his 
heart,  and  then  he  is  made  willing,  and  comes  to  Jesus. 
He  is  arrested  by  a  process  of  law,  and  is  dragged,  bv 
the  power  of  the  law  in  his  conscience,  before  his  judge, 
righting  and  resisting  all  the  while,  until  the  Holy  Ghost 
touches  his  heart  of  stone,  and  it  is  changed,  and  the 
wild  maniac  comes  to  his  right  mind,  and  follow  Him 
who  lead  captivity  captive.  Now,  we  are  not  to  be  mis- 
understood, as  though  we  taught,  that  a  man  is  saved  by 
a  kind  of  physical  compulsion.  He  is  saved  contrary 
to  what  was  his  ivill,  and  wish,  and  desire,  and  inclina- 
tion of  heart,  before  the  spirit  renewed  his  mind.  In 
this  sense,  he  is  saved  against  his  will.  But  in  the 
work  of  drawing  him,  by  the  power  of  his  Holy  Spirit, 
God  t4  worketh  in  him  both  to  will  and  to  do"— God,  of 
his  good  pleasure,  ivorketh  both  the  willing  and  the  do- 
ing. That  is,  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  his  almighty  power, 
renewing  the  mind,  changes  the  will;  so  that  he,  who  at 
first  resisted,  now  ceases  to  resist — he  who  at  first  refused 
to  do.  and  to  come,  now,  becomes  active  and  laborious  in 
running  the  race  set  before  him. 

3.  The  intellectual  inability  of  man,  is  proved  by  the 
scripture  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  illumination,  it.  Cor. 
iv.  6.  "  God  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of 
darkness,  hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
15 


170  INABILITY  ACCORDING 

Christ."  Hence,  "the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation 
in  the  knowledge  of  him,"  is  given  by  the  Father. 
Eph.  i.  17.  Previously  to  which  gift  of  the  Spirit,  "ye 
were  sometimes  darkness,  but  now  are  ye  light  in  the 
Lord,"  chap.  v.  8.  "  This  is  the  anointing  which  ye 
have  received  of  him — and  ye  need  not  that  any  man 
teach  you."  i.  John  in.  27.  "  But  the  comforter, 
which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send 
in  my  room,  he  shall  tell  you  all  things."  John  xiv  26. 
44  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  shew  it  unto 
you."  xvi.  14. 

From  these  passages  it  is  evident,  (1.)  That  the  mind 
of  man  is  in  a  state  of  spiritual  darkness.  (2.)  That  it 
remains,  and  will  remain  so,  until  the  Spirit  of  God  give 
light  or  knowledge.  (3.)  That  this  giving  of  light  and 
knowledge,  is  by  a  divine  influence,  analagous  to  that  by 
which  the  light  at  first  creation,  was  produced  and  made 
to  shine.  As  to  all  spiritual,  saving  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  the  mind,  is  like  the  chaos,  before  the  eternal  first 
said  '*  let  there  be  light."  Darkness  covers  the  earth  and 
gross  darkness  the  people.  Now  in  this  state,  it  is  im- 
possible for  man  to  understand — he  cannot  discern  the 
things  of  the  Spirit. 

I  know  it  is  affirmed,  that  man  has  the  eye — the  or- 
gan of  vision,  and  therefore,  he  has  the  ability  to  see,  al- 
though he  has  no  light.  Only  remove  the  obstructing 
window  shutters,  and  the  prisoner  in  the  dungeon  sees  ; 
he  therefore  had  the  ability  to  see  before. 

Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves  or  others.  It  is  not  true 
that  a  man  who  has  an  eye  in  a  sound  state,  has  ability  to 
see.  It  is  false,  in  fact.  Without  light,  he  cannot  see — he 
is  not  able  to  see;  he  has  not  ability  to  see.  It  is  not  true 
either,  in  point  of  fact,  that  a  man  who  has  a  sound  eye 
and  light  too,  can  see  all  things,  which  are  perceptible, 
even  by  other  eyes.  The  myops  can  behold  near  ob- 
jects clearly,  and  not  distant  ones — he  is  not  able  to  see 
afar  off.  So  a  man  may  be  able  to  see,  with  the  mental 
eye,  some  things,  who  cannot  see  other  things.  Ability 
is  the  adaptation  of  the  cause  to  produce  the  effect.  The 
eye  of  the  myops  is  adapted  to  produce  the  effect 
of  vision  as  to  near  objects ;  but  not  as  to  distant  objects. 


TO  THE   BIBLE. 


171 


The  mind's  eye  of  the  natural  man,  is  adapted  to  be  the 
cause  of  mental  vision,  as  to  natural  things,  but  not  as  to 
spiritual  things.  Mental  ability  to  understand  a  math- 
ematical demostration  may  exist,  where  there  is  an 
inability  of  mind  to  comprehend  the  beauties  of  a 
painting,  or  a  poem  or  a  piece  of  music.  To  affirm 
that  this  man  of  abstractions  is  able  to  understand 
and  perform  music,  to  write  epic,  or  to  pencil  the 
canvass  into  life,  is  to  affirm  an  untruth.  Just  so,  to 
affirm  that  he  "  that  lacketh  these  things," — the  chris- 
tian graces  of  faith,  virtue,  knowledge  &c.  2.  Pet.  i.  6, 
9 — can  see  spiritually,  is  to  contradict  the  express  de- 
claration of  scripture,  which  is,  that  he  "  is  blind  and 
cannot  see  afar  off."  "  Thou  blind  Pharisee."  "  Ye 
blind  leaders  of  the  blind."  Either  therefore  there  is  in 
the  unrenewed  mind,  an  incompetency,  an  incapacity, 
an  inability  to  understand  the  things  of  the  Spirit ;  or  the 
whole  language  of  the  bible  on  this  subject  is  adapted  to 
deceive  us  :  and  the  fact  of  restoring  sight  to  the  natural- 
ly blind,  is  not  intended  to  teach  us  our  need  of  the 
same  divine  power  to  recover  the  soul  to  spiritual  vision. 

But  I  wish  to  present  this  as  a  distinct  argument. 

4.  The  miracles  of  healing,  performed  by  the  Sa- 
viour are  designed  to  teach  men  their  need  of  superna- 
tural power,  for  the  restoration  of  the  soul  to  a  state  of 
holy,  spiritual  life.  Particularly,  the  restoration  of  sight 
is  adapted  and  intended  to  teach  the  doctrine  for  which 
we  contend.  "  For  judgement,  I  am  come  into  this 
world ;  that  they  which  see  not,  might  see  ;— -"  I  am 
the  light  of  the  world:  he  that  folio weth  me,  shall  not 
walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life." 
Surely,  no  man  can  read  these,  and  such  as  these  texts, 
without  imbibing  the  conviction,  that  the  Bible  inculcates 
the  doctrine  of  man's  native  blindness  of  mind,  and  his 
utter  inability  to  understand  the  things  of  God,  until  the 
day  star  of  supernatural  illumination  shines  into  his 
mind.  Bartimeus  was  not  less  able  to  see  the  multi- 
tude as  they  passed  by  than  the  most  learned  Pharisee 
was  to  discern  spiritual  things.  Lazarus  was  not  less 
able  to  come  forth  out  of  the  tomb,  before  the  divine 


172  INABILITY  ACCORDING 

poiver  restored  him  to   life,  than  the  "blind  Pharisee," 
to  understand  the  doctrines  of  salvation. 

Now,  we  need  only  farther  remark  concerning  this 
intellectual  defect  or  mental  inability  to  understand  the 
things  of  the  spirit,  it  is,  according  to  Dr.  Edwards, 
a  natural  inability,  an  impeding  defect,  or  obstacle, 
extrinsic  to  the  will,  in  the  faculty  of  understanding  ! 

It  is  sometimes  objected  to  this,  that,  the  defect  itself 
cannot  be  pointed  out,  and  consequently,  the  thing  done, 
when  this  inability  is  removed,  cannot  be  explained. 
What  is  the  deficiency  ?  Where  does  it  lie  ?  How  is  it 
removed  ?  What  faculty  has  a  renewed  sinner,  that  is 
not  possessed  by  the  impenitent?  What  is  done  to  ena- 
ble, to  give  capacity  to  understand  spiritual  things  I 

To  all  these,  we  answer :  they  are  founded  on  our 
ignorance  and  may  easily  be  retorted.  What  faculty 
had  the  lame  man  after  he  was  healed,  that  he  had  not 
before  ?  Was  there  added  a  bone,  muscle,  or  tender  to 
his  bodily  frame  ?  What  was  done  to  him  ?  It  is  mani- 
fest, that  ignorance  of  the  change  and  the  mode  of  its 
production  are  no  proof  against  the  fact. 

The  blind  man  knew  nothing,  but  that  "he  put  clay 
upon  mine  eyes  and  I  washed  and  do  see — how  he 
opened  mine  eyes,  I  know  not."  But  now,  the  fact  of 
spiritual  illumination  is  just  as  perfectly  well  known  to 
the  subject  of  it,  as  the  fact  of  natural  restoration  to 
sight.  And  all  pious  men,  of  all  sects,  acknowledge  a 
difference,  and  refer  it  to  the  spirit  of  God. 

III.  The  moral  powers  of  the  soul  are  paralysed  by 
the  fall. 

We  have  seen  with  Edwards  and  Locke,  that  to  a.s- 
scribe  inability  to  the  will,  is  philosophically  absurd  : 
and  yet,  wise  men  do  so  speak.  We  must,  therefore, 
exercise  due  caution,  or  we  shall  entirely  misunderstand 
them.  By  inability  of  will,  is  meant  simply  unwil- 
lingness or  disinclination.  Now,  that  man  is  unwil- 
ling—that  he  is  disinclined  to  holy  things,  none  deny. 
This,  the  state,  and  the  almost  universal  practice  of  the 
race  most  sadly  testify.  Who  needs  proof  of  it  ?  Who 
asks  for  evidence  to  shew,  that  man  is  inclined  to  evil 
as  the  sparks  do  ascend  ?     There  is  no  room  for  doubt, 


TO  THE  BIBLE.  173 

and  can  be  no  need  of  proof  here.  Every  man's  eyes 
and  inward  consciousness  are  sufficient  for  him. 

But  it  may  be  of  some  consequence  to  see  the  con- 
nexion of  this  with  the  preceding.  The  will  is  the 
mind  choosing:  and  choice  implies  motive  in  view. 
To  choose  without  a  motive  influencing  to  choice,  is 
not  conceivable.  Now,  the  motive  to  an  act  of  choice 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  some  apprehended  good,  to  which 
the  mind  is  drawn  by  its  apprehension  or  view  of  it  as 
a  good.  The  motive  is  the  thing,  as  it  is  seen  or  per- 
ceived by  the  mind.  When  a  child,  or  a  man,  being 
offered  an  orange  of  wax,  supposing  it  a  real  orange, 
and  a  real  apple,  chooses  the  orange,  the  motive  of  the 
choice,  is  not  a  waxen  orange  ;  but  a  real  orange  ;  the 
deception  and  mistake,  has  given  a  reality  to  the  motive 
in  the  mind,  which  did  not  exist  in  the  thing.  The 
power,  therefore,  of  any  thing,  as  a  motive,  depends 
upon  the  mind's  present  view  and  estimate  of  it.  But 
now  it  is  clear,  that  this  view  and  estimate  depend 
wholly,  upon  the  mind's  powers  of  perception,  and 
these  upon  the  organs  and  medium.  To  illustrate. 
The  waxen  ball,  being  painted  so  as  to  resemble  an 
orange,  produces,  through  the  organ  of  vision,  a  belief, 
that  it  is  an  orange,  and  thus,  choice  is  determined.  The 
waxen  ball  is  chosen  and  the  real  apple  is  rejected. 
But  change  the  organ  of  perception — let  the  smell  and 
the  feeling  be  brought  to  bear  ;  then  the  mind's  appre- 
hension and  belief  are  changed,  and  these  change  also, 
the  choice — the  will  is  to  take  the  apple.  Darkness 
then,  in  the  understanding — ignorance  in  the  mind — 
inability  of  intellect,  most  materially  affects  motives 
and  choice. 

Now,  if,  as  some  have  supposed,  the  mind  had  a 
power  to  act  contrary  to  motive,  it  would  manifestly  not 
be  a  moral  being  at  all  :  for  the  very  essence  of  morali- 
ty is  a  capacity  to  be  influenced  to  action  by  considera- 
tions of  right  and  wrong.  If  a  rational  mind,  could 
act  without  motive,  which  to  me,  appears  a  contradiction 
in  terms,  it  would  certainly  not  be  a  moral  act.  If,  as 
I  suppose,  it  belongs  to  the  very  essence  of  reason  and 
morality,  to  be  actuated  bv  motives ;  and  if  motives  are 
15* 


174  INABILITY  ACCORDING 

the  mind's  views  of  things,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the 
understanding  is  the  governing  faculty  :  and  the  under- 
standing being  blinded  by  sin  and  its  corrupting  lusts, 
it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  enlightening  of  the  mind,  must 
lead  to  the  sanctification  of  the  affections,  and  rectifica- 
tion of  the  will.  There  is  no  possible — no  conceiva- 
ble way  of  changing  the  human  will,  but  by  changing 
the  views  which  the  mind  has  of  the  subject  matter  be- 
fore it.  The  will  cannot  be  forced.  You  can  induce 
the  child,  or  man,  to  prefer  the  apple  to  the  orange  ; — 
that  is,  to  a  change  of  will,  only  by  a  change  of  motive. 
And  how  is  this  effected,  when  the  subject  matter  be- 
fore the  eye  is  the  very  same  ?  If  the  subject  matter 
before  the  mind  is  the  same,  there  can  be  no  change  of 
will.  But  if  you  inform  the  hungry  child  that  the 
orange  is  not  an  orange  and  cannot  be  eaten,  but  that 
the  apple  is  a  delicious  reality  ;  you  place  a  new  motive 
before  the  mind  and  the  consequence  is,  a  new  choice — • 
a  change  of  will.  Other  mode  of  access  to  the  will  there 
is  none,  but  through  the  understanding.  What  men 
have  been  accustomed,  unphilosophically,  to  call  inabili- 
ty of  will,  is  nothing  more  or  less,  than  simply,  "a  de- 
fect of  motives" — "  a  want  of  sufficient  motives,  to  in- 
duce, or  excite  the  act  of  the  will" — i.  e.  to  induce  the 
mind  to  a  choice.  But  as  choice  may,  and  often  does 
occur,  without  any  moral  character — as  when  I  choose 
between  figures  and  letters  in  numbering  chapters,  or 
as  when  a  horse  chooses  between  hay  and  corn  fodder, 
— it  is  obvious  that  the  inability  of  mind  to  choose  holy 
things,  lies  in  the  want  of  moral  motives:  i.  e.  in  spirit' 
ual  blindness  ;  in  the  loss  or  derangement  of  the  powers 
of  moral  perception.  This  I  have  not  been  able  in  the 
previous  discussion,  to  keep  entirely  separate  from  the 
idea  of  intellectual  inability  :  yet  I  trust  we  have  seen 
(Chap.  i.  S.  vn.)  full  evidence,  that  a  moral  sense  or 
power  of  preception  there  is,  and  that  this  is  the  basis 
of  moral  agency.  Now  it  is  the  derangement  of  the 
mind,  by  sin,  which  effects  this  power  of  perceiving 
right  and  wrong,  that  enfeebles  or  destroys  the  force  of 
moral  motives.  Unrenewed  and  renewed  men,  look  at 
the  same  subject  matter;  but  then  moral  perceptions  ^r« 


TO  THE  BIBLE.  175 

quite  different ;  and  therefore  their  motives  are  quite 
different,  [the  things  actually  seen  by  their  minds  are 
different ;  and  by  necessity,  different  effects  must  be 
produced  upon  them.  The  one  sees  "  a  root  out  of  a 
dry  ground,"  in  which  there  is  "  no  form  nor  comeli- 
ness;" the  other  sees  one  "  altogether  lovely;"  by  the 
former,  he  must  be  despised  and  rejected,  who  is  by  the 
latter,  loved  and  embraced.  Whilst  such  are  the  views 
of  the  individuals,  respectively,  such  must  be  their  choice 
and  conduct.  It  is  impossible  to  be  otherwise.  You 
must  change  their  moral  perceptions,  before  it  is  possi- 
ble their  volition  should  change.  Now  the  precise  thing 
we  insist  on  here,  is  that  no  human  power — no  created 
power  can  change  the  moral  perceptions  of  sinful  man. 
He  is  unable  to  change  himself.  "The  Ethiopian  cannot 
change  his  skin — nor  the  Leopard  his  spots."  None  but 
the  creating — the  regenerating  energies  of  God's  Almigh- 
ty Spirit  can  change  the  mind,  so  as  to  enable  man  that 
is  blind  to  see  God's  light  clearly.  Here  then  precisely 
lies  the  moral  inability  of  man — not  in  the  will,  for  the 
supposition  is  nonsense — but  in  the  want  of  adequate 
powers  of  moral  perception — the  moral  sense  is  protract- 
ed: the  mind  is  unable  to  discriminate  between  good  and 
evil,  truth  and  falsehood,  right  and  wrong,  God  and 
Mammon,  Christ  and  Belial.  Not  that  it  can  perceive 
no  difference  ;  for  this  we  admit ;  but  it  cannot  appreci- 
ate in  any  tolerable  degree,  the  excellence  of  truth,  and 
the  glory  of  its  Author,  on  the  one  hand ;  and  the  base- 
ness of  falsehood,  and  degradation  of  vice,  on  the  other. 
Nor  are  you  to  suppose  that  man  has  the  adequate  facul- 
ties for  this  moral  perception,  and  wants  only  the  moral 
light.  Just  the  reverse ;  the  moral  light  shines  all  around 
him  ;  but  his  powers  of  vision  are  gone :  he  walks  in 
darkness  whilst  the  noon  tide  splendors  of  the  sun  of 
righteousness  pour  all  around  him.  He  gropes  for  the 
way  and  stumbles  over  the  very  rock  of  ages,  into  the 
slough  of  despond.  Wretch  that  he  is  !  he  must  ever 
remain  so,  for  any  relief  that  can  spring  from  earth. 
Onward  he  totters  toward  the  gulph  of  eternal  dis- 
pair,  and  soon  must  he  plunge  in,  and  buffet  the  fiery 
flood  unless  the  Father  of  mercies  cry  to  the  Son  of  hi* 


176  INABILITY  ACCORDING    TO  THE  BIBLE. 

love.  "  Let  there  be  light,"  and  the  Spirit  of  all  grace 
shines  into  his  heart  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  God. 

Now  this  change  in  the  mind,  is  effected  by  the  divine 
power.  It  is  supernatural.  Created  agency  may  be 
employed  as  a  means,  or  instrument,  but  the  power  is 
God's  alone.  It  is  the  same  power  as  that  by  which 
Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead. 

Such  is  the  Bible  doctrine  of  inability.  What  are  its 
practical  tendencies  and  effects  ? 

2.  To  stain  the  pride  of  all  human  glory.  To  bring 
down  the  lofty  looks  of  man.  To  make  all  men  feel 
themselves  less  than  the  least  of  God's  mercies. 

3. To  produce  that  state  of  feeling  dependence  on  divine 
power  and  grace,  which  is  indispensable,  as  the  antece- 
dent of  forgiveness  of  sins  through  the  blood  of  atone- 
ment. 

4.  To  exalt  the  condescension  and  law  of  God  in  the 
apprehension  of  the  humbled  sinner.  He  only  who 
feels  himself  absolutely  helpless,  will  surrender  him- 
self to  sovereign  mercy  and  grace.  He  only  who  feels 
himself  already  sinking  under  the  billows  of  a  justly  in- 
censed indignation,  will  explain  in  tones  of  piercing 
agony,   "  Lord  save  me  or  I  perish." 

5.  To  place  the  crown  of  glory  on  the  only  head 
worthy  to  wear  it.  "  Not  unto  us,  O  Lord,  not  unto 
us,  but  unto  thy  name,  give  glory,  for  thy  mercy  and  for 
thy  truth's  sake."     Ps.  115,  1. 

1.  To  awake  the  sin  secure  soul,  who  feels  that  he 
can  repent  and  be  saved,  whenever  he  pleases,  to  a 
sense  of  his  lost  and  ruined  state.  The  thought  is  awe- 
ful !  and  leaves  no  rest  in  the  mind.  Lost,  and  no  help  ! 
No  power  in  me,  or  any  creature  to  save  me  !  O, "dread- 
ful ! 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  GOSPEL  REVEALS  THE  ONLY  EFFECTUAL  REMEDY  FOR 
THE  EVILS  OF  THE  BROKEN  COVENANT. 

We  have  looked  into  the  great  general  principles  of 
moral  government,  as  established  by  the  Creator,  and  re- 
vealed in  the  sacred  scriptures. 

We  have  examined,  in  considerable   detail,  the  spe- 
cial modifications  of  that  government,  as  it  was  extend- 
ed over  man,  in  his  primitive  condition. 

We  have  discussed  the  question  of  the  extent  of  the 
covenant  made  with  Adam,  and  the  Representative  char- 
acter which  he  sustained. 

We  have  settled  the  meaning  of  certain  terms,  impor- 
tant in  this  discussion — Just,  Righteous,  Righteousness, 
Justify,  Justification. 

We  have  enquired  what  was  requisite  to  Adam's 
justification,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  and 
have  found  one  thing  only,  necessary,  viz :  Righteous- 
ness, conformity  of  his  conduct  with  the  law. 

We  have  contemplated  the  fact — that  he  violated  his 
covenant  engagement — disobeyed  God ;  and  conse- 
quently, incurred  the  penalty,  which  constitutes  an  ad- 
ditional requisite  in  order  to  his  justification. 
V-  We  have  examined  the  physical,  intellectual,  and  mo- 
ral consequences  of  Adam's  sin  upon  himself,  and  his 
posterity. 

We  have  canvassed  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  ori^ 
ginal  sin — including  the  general  doctrine  of  imputa- 
tion. 

We  have  attempted  an  exposition  of  that  difficult, 
and  very  important  portion  of  the  divine  word,  contained 
in  Rom.  v.  12—- 21,  as  an  argument  on  this  great  doc- 
trine. 

We  have  deduced,  from  the  case  of  those  who  die  in 
infancy,  an  argument  for  the  same  doctrine. 


1^8  THE  GOSPEL  REVEALS  A  REMEDY. 

We  have  seen  the  utter  inability  of  man,  in  his  fallen 
state,  to  meet  the  requirements  of  law,  and  thereby,  to 
restore  himself  to  the  favour  of  God.  In  which,  we 
have  examined  the  metaphysical  distinction  of  ability 
into  moral  and  natural. 

The  result  of  this  discussion  and  examination,  is,  a 
thorough  conviction,  that  man  is  fallen,  ruined,  lost, 
undone,  and  totally  helpless  in  himself — an  outcast  from 
God  and  Heaven,  and  helplessly  undone,  by  the  broken 
covenant  of  works. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  enter  upon  the  most  impor- 
tant question  of  a  remedy.  How  shall  the  fearful  cala- 
mities consequent  upon  sin,  be  obviated  ?  Is  there  a 
possibility  of  man's  escape  from  the  just  and  legal  con- 
sequences of  his  transgression  ?  and  of  his  receiving 
the  blessings  and  the  benefits  originally  proffered  as  the 
reward  of  obedience  ?  The  original  law  given  to  him, 
and  which  was  ordained  unto  life — which  was  so  ad- 
justed that  obedience  to  it,  must  be  followed  by  life, 
but  where  transgression  has  been  found  unto  death, — 
can  it  yet  be  restored  and  fulfilled,  and  thus  life  be  still 
secured  to  lost  man  ?  Is  there  any  where,  an  arm  al- 
mighty to  save  ?  Can  man  yet  be  just  with  God? 

Our  theme  is  the  affirmative  response  :  "  for  behold 
I  bring  unto  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy,  which  shall 
be  unto  all  people  ;  for  unto  you  is  born,  in  a  city  of 
David,  the  Saviour,  which  is  Christ  the  Lord. '  The 
Bible  reveals  a  remedy.     And  here  our  first  position, 

SECTION  I. 
Is,  that  the  Gospel  is  a  remedial  law. 

By  this,  is  meant,  that  the  scheme  of  redemption  re- 
vealed in  the  Bible,  professes  to  counteract  the  evils,  re- 
sulting from  a  former  scheme  ;  to  make  amends  for  its 
violation ;  to  provide  a  remedy  for  the  moral  diseases 
introduced  through  its  agency  ;  and  so  to  heal  the  hurt 
of  the  daughter  of  my  people. 

The  evidence  may  be  found  in  the  professed  design 
of  the   Saviour.     He   came  to   fulfil   all   righteousness 


THE  GOSPEL  A  REMEDIAL  LAW. 


179 


—to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost — to  heal 
the  sick — to  cleanse  those  infested  with  the  lepro- 
sy of  sin — to  rescue  man  from  the  condemnation  of  the 
law,  and  to  restore  him  to  the  favour  and  enjoyment  of 
God — to  throw  open  the  prison  doors,  and  to  proclaim 
liberty  to  the  captives — to  give  sight  to  the  blind — to 
make  the  lame  walk,  and  the  tongue  of  the  dumb  'sing 
for  joy.  The  entire  phraseology  of  scripture  shews, 
that  the  gospel  is  a  remedy  for  evils  consequent  upon 
some  scheme  of  law,  which  preceded  it.  It  is  not  a 
device  original,  in  and  of  itself;  but  is  manifestly  based 
upon  the  hypothesis  of  another  covenant  having  pre? 
ceded  it,  at  the  head  of  which,  is  another  Adam,  of  whom 
this  second  man  is  the  anti-type.  The  actual  work  ac- 
complished by  the  Lord  from  Heaven,  is  remedial. 
He  restores  from  the  ruins  of  the  fall. 

SECTION  II. 


The  Gospel,  like  every  remedial  law,  establishes  the 
principle  of  the  original  Institute. 

This  is  implied  in  the  term,  by  which  I  have  express- 
ed the  idea.  To  speak  of  remedying  a  defect,  suppos- 
es the  continuance  of  the  thing  in  which  it  exists.  In 
human  legislation,  an  original  statute  defines  its  object, 
and  the  principle  by  which  it  proposes  to  accomplish 
it.  The  general  law  for  the  establishment  of  schools  in 
this  Commonwealth,  specifies  its  object — the  education 
of  the  entire  mass  of  the  people  :  It  also  settles  the 
great  principle  upon  which  it  shall  be  done — by  a  fund 
provided  by  the  State,  and  a  tax  levied  by  the  people 
upon  themselves  directly.  This  is  an  original  statute. 
But  now,  many  defects  may  be  developed  in  the  applica- 
tion of  its  detail.  These,  it  may  be  possible  to  cure, 
without  abandoning  either  the  object,  or  the  general 
principle  by  which  it  is  proposed  to  secure  it.  Subse- 
quent laws  may  correct  the  defects,  and  all  such  laws 
are  remedial,  and  in  our  legislation  are  called  supple- 
ments. Should  our  Legislature  hereafter  determine  to 
abandon  the  object,  or  the  principle,  they  must  pass  a  re- 


180  THE   GOSPEL  A  REMEDIAL  LAW. 

pealing  act.     But  moral  laws  cannot  be  repealed,  even 
by  a  divine  ordinance.     They  are  an  expose  of  the  di- 
vine perfections  and  are  eternal  like  their  author ;  and 
hence  the  reason  why  the   law  given  to   Adam,  could 
never  be   repealed,   abrogated   or   set    entirely   aside.* 
It  is  a  moral  law,  andean  no  more  be  changed,  than  God 
himself,  of  whose  perfections  it  is  a  transcript.     By  a 
change  in  man,  it  has  wrought  death,  and  must  continue 
to  work  death,  unless  the  omniscient  Legislator  provide 
a  remedy.     The  law,  he  can  never  repeal :  a  supple- 
ment remedial  he  has  revealed  in  his  holy  word.     The 
obligation  upon  Adam  and  his  race,  to  obey  God,  as  we 
have  seen,  never  can  cease :  the   motive  to  obedience, 
held  out  in  the  promise  of  life,  never  can  be  withdrawn. 
"  If  thou    wilt  have  life,    keep    the    commandments." 
The  gospel  does  not  make  void  the  law  ;  "God  forbid  ! 
yea,  we  establish  the  law."     But  "  what  the  law  could 
not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh — by  man's 
failure — God  sending  his  own  Son,  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,   condemned  sin  in  the  flesh, 
that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in 
us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit." 
So  far  therefore,  from  the  gospel  being  an  original  law, 
defining  and  fixing  its   own   principles,  irrespective  of 
any  pre-existing  scheme,  or  system  of  law,  it  is  simply 
a  remedial  scheme,  designed  to  confirm,   and  establish 
the  eternal  principles  of  right,  laid  down  in  the  law  and 
covenant  given  by  his  Creator  to  man.     Material  things 
are  subject  to  mutation.     Earth's  surface  may  be  the 
theatre  of  ten  thousand  ever  shifting  scenes,  whose  last 
drama  may  be  a  renovated  world,  emerging  from  a]  de- 
luge of  fire.     Material  suns  and  systems  may  be   blot- 
ted out  from  the  page  of  existence  ;  but  God's  law  is 
immutable  as  his  own  eternal  throne.     "  Think  not  that 
I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil ;  for  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled." 
It  is  not  denied,  that  the  law  here  includes  the  Mosaic 

*  See  Gray's  Mediatorial  Reign,  p.  144. 


THE  GOSPEL  A  REMEDIAL  LAW.  181 

writings,  and  the  prophets,  but  it  is  unquestionably  true, 
that  the  main  substance  of  the  whole,  is  the  moral  law, 
which  is  interspersed  throughout  the  scriptures. 

The  truth  of  our  second  position  will  be,  if  possible, 
more  clearly  manifested  by  reference  to  the  fact,  that 
the  gospel  reveals  no  new  moral  principle — prescribes 
no  rule  of  action  different  from  the  moral  law. 

New  motives  to  holy  action — new  views  of  God's 
benevolent  character,  it  does  indeed  present.  But  the 
impulsive  power  of  these,  is  not  in  a  different,  but  in 
the  very  same  direction  as  the  previous  moral  system. 
Gratitude  and  love  are  presented  in  a  new  and  stronger 
light  ;  but  they  are  not  new  duties — they  were  of  old, 
even  from  the  beginning,  binding  upon  man.  In  the 
progress  of  this  discussion,  we  shall  see  that  every 
leading  doctrine  of  the  new  covenant,  was  previously  in 
operation  in  the  old — that  the  covenant  of  works  involves 
all  the  elements,  whose  application,  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  is  productive  of  so  many  blessings  to  man  and  so 
much  glory  to  God. 

It  may  be  suggested,  that  faith  and  repentance  are  du- 
ties enjoined  in  the  gospel:  audit  maybe  asked,  are 
they  not  peculiar  to  the  gospel  ?  Were  men,  before  its 
promulgation,  called  upon  to  believe  and  repent? 

As  to  faith,  it  may  be  remarked,  in  reply,  that  the 
general  principle  is  a  part  of  the  moral  law  of  man's 
creation.  It  is  as  much  a  part  of  man's  nature,  to  be- 
lieve in  testimony,  as  to  perceive  truth,  and  to  reason 
about  it ;  to  love  his  fellows,  and  himself.  The  gospel 
requires  the  exercise  of  the  principle  of  faith,  in  refer- 
ence to  anew  testimony;  and  it  makes  provision  for 
the  renewal  of  the  mind,  by  which,  the  man  is  enabled 
to  such  exercise.  But  it  introduces  only  a  new  modifi- 
cation of  that  trust  and  confidence  in  God,  which  ha« 
always  been  obligatory  on  man. 

Repentance  is  not  a  moral  principle  at  all.  It  is  the 
turning  of  the  heart,  the  mind,  the  soul,  the  man  from 
sin  to  God.  It  consists  essentially,  in  the  action  of  the 
man :  and,  as  a  moral  action,  may  be  resolved  into  hat- 
red of  sin,  which  is  only  a  form  of  holy  feeling — the 
re-action  of  love  to  God  and  holiness  :  and  that  love  it- 
16 


182  THE  GOSPEL  PROVISION. 

self,  called  into  action  by  faith's  view  of  the  bleeding 
cross.  Every  one  of  its  elements,  may  be  found  in  the 
requirements  of  the  moral  law.  All  that  is  new  in  the 
duty  of  repentance,  is  the  peculiar  circumstances  which 
occasion  its  exercise.  True,  if  by  repentance  be  meant 
compunction  of  conscience,  and  sorrow  for  sin,  it  might 
be,  with  some  plausibility,  affirmed  to  be,  a  new  duty, 
unknown  to  the  moral  law.  These,  however,  I  hope 
to  shew,  are  only  accompaniments,  at  most,  and  not  re- 
pentance. Indeed,  they  are  not  always,  even  accom- 
paniments ;  for  they  often  occur,  where  there  is  never 
a  true  turning  of  the  heart  to  God. 

Let  us  then,  view  the  gospel  as  a  remedial  law — a 
scheme  devised  by  infinite  wisdom,  to  remedy  the  evils 
resulting  to  lost  man,  from  the  violated  covenant,  and 
designed,  not  to  abrogate,  but  to  establish  its  principles, 
and  secure  its  objects. 

SECTION  III. 

The  gospel  must  provide  a  complete  fulfilment  of  the 
positive  precept  of  the  law,  or  covenant  of  works. 

In  the  original  institute,  the  whole  substance  of  moral 
obedience  was  summed  up  in  the  single  precept,  relative 
to  the  fruit  forbidden.  As  the  law  is  a  unity,  and  he 
who  offends  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all ;  so  when  the 
spirit  of  obedience  is  tested  in  a  single  point  only,  and 
confined  to  that  point,  a  failure  here,  brings  upon  man 
the  guilt  of  the  whole — he  is  liable  to  the  whole  penalty. 
Now  this  was  the  sum  total  of  the  law,  as  a  covenant 
given  to  Adam,  that  he  should  obey,  and  as  the  reward 
of  obedience  should  receive  life.  This  glorious  reward 
was  held  up  as  the  motive  prompting  to  choice  on  the 
side  of  law  and  right.  The  law  was  ordained  unto  life. 
This  is  its  object,  and  to  this  it  was  adapted.  But  it 
failed  in  the  hands  of  the  first  Adam,  and  the  second 
comes  in  to  make  it  good,  to  establish  its  principle  and 
secure  its  object.  Life,  as  the  reward  of  active  obedi- 
ence to  law,  must  be  guaranteed  by  the  surety  of  this 
better  covenant,  established  upon  better  promises.     And 


REMEDIAL  SCHEME.  183 

the  expansion  of  this  obedience  over  ten  thousand 
points,  which  originally  was  confined  to  one,  does  not 
alter  the  nature  of  the  transaction.  It  may  indeed,  en- 
hance its  value ;  as  he  who  is  exposed  to  the  possibility 
of  failure,  in  a  variety  of  ways,  may  be  supposed  more 
meritorious  in  his  obedience,  than  he  who  possibly  can 
err  in  but  one.  The  spirit  of  subordination  to  the  will 
of  God  is  the  same,  whether  one,  or  one  million  of  acts 
be  the  expression  of  it.  "My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of 
him  that  sent  me,"  said  the  second  Adam,  and  wherever 
this  is  the  ruling  spirit,  there  the  right  to  the  reward  of 
life  still  exists.  The  remedial  scheme  must  reveal  this 
spirit,  and  develope  it  in  full  action  according  to  law. 

SECTION  IV. 

//  must  remedy  the  failure — must  make  amends  for 
the  positive  evils  under  the  original  institute. 

Under  the  administration  of  the  first  Adam,  sin  in- 
curred death.  The  law  having  been  transgressed,  there 
was  no  evasion  of  its  penal  claim.  The  faithfulness  of 
God  to  his  own  declaration,  was  pledged  to  see  the 
sanctions  of  justice  fully  carried  out.  The  character  of 
his  moral  government  over  the  universe,  and  even  the 
reality  and  perpetuity  of  it,  imperiously  demanded  that 
she  should  hold  an  equal  balance.  Disease  and  death 
have  occurred ;  and  these  most  especially,  demand  the 
interposition  of  a  remedy.  The  law  worketh  death,  and 
that,  by  its  legitimate  and  necessary  action.  Now,  death 
and  disease  must  be  counteracted,  before  it  is  possible 
that  the  great  object  of  the  original  institute  can  be  at- 
tained. Justice  is  as  much  concerned  to  inflict  merited 
punishment,  as  to  bestow  merited  reward.  Clearly 
then,  such  infliction,  where  it  is  merited,  must  precede  the 
bestowment  of  reward,  and  hence,  the  remedial  law  must 
provide  an  adequate  satisfcation  to  the  claims  of  insulted 
justice.  This  we  shall  hereafter  contemplate  under  the 
head  of  atonement. 


184  COVENANT  REPRESENTATION. 


SECTION  V. 

The  two  preceding  grand  requisites  in  the  remedial 

law,  must  be  secured  on  the  principle  of  the 

original  institute;  viz:  by  a  covenant 

representation. 

First,  it  must  be  by  covenant,  that  security  may  be 
given,  and  confidence  won.  If  there  is  no  pledge,  prom- 
ise or  guarantee,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  evils  of  sin 
shall  be  remedied,  and  the  terms  of  the  first  covenant 
fulfilled;  there  could  be  no  ground,  on  the  other,  to  ex- 
pect deliverance  from  condemnation,  and  security  in  life. 
The  nature  of  moral  government  must  be  changed,  if 
God  could  grant  to  man,  life  on  any  other  terms,  than 
had  been  prescribed  in  the  law,  and  agreed  to  by  man. 
An  arbitrary  bestowment  of  life,  irrespective  of,  and  in 
opposition  to  the  claims  of  violated  law,  would  have 
been  a  virtual  abrogation  of  it,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
very  nature  of  a  remedial  scheme.  But  how  the  remedy 
could  be  by  an  adequate  sacrifice,  rendering  satisfaction 
for  sin,  without  the  voluntary  action  of  the  Surety,  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive.  If  a  Surety  be  admitted  at  all, 
it  must  be  by  agreement  of  the  party  offended  and  the 
person  offered  as  Surety. 

But  again,  this  is  necessary,  in  order  to  its  being  by 
representation,  according  to  the  original  covenant.  Ruin 
was  brought  upon  the  whole  race,  through  their  connec- 
tion with  their  moral  head  ;  so  the  remedy  for  that  ruin, 
must  be  through  the  agency  of  their  moral  head.  The 
great  fundamental  doctrine  of  all  social  organization, 
without  which,  there  can  be  no  government  of  any  kind, 
of  man  over  man — the  doctrine  of  representation,  and  of 
consequent  imputation,  stands  out  in  bold  relief  and  lu- 
minous prominence,  upon  the  whole  front  of  that  moral 
constitution,  originally  given  to  man.  This  must  appear 
also,  with  a  correspondent  prominence,  upon  the  front 
of  that  splendid  structure  which  the  Son  of  God  is  erect- 
ing to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace.  It  was  never  de- 
signed, in  the  former  case,  that  human  persons,  all  and 


DEDUCTIONS.  185 

each,  should  be  insulated,  and  stand  firm,  here  one,  and 
there  another ;  or  should  fall  on  the  right  hand,  and  an 
the  left.  Such  a  scheme  would  have  left  man  essentially 
unsocial,  and  peopled  a  world  with  spirits  of  precisely 
opposite  characters.  On  the  contrary,  God  made  man 
social ;  and  enstamped  this  character  on  his  constitution: 
and  in  the  representative  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  you  have  the  elemental  principle  of  all  social  rela- 
tions. By  this  is  man  attached  and  united  to  his  fel- 
low :  he  is  made  dependent,  as  to  his  moral  destinies, 
and  social  interests,  upon  the  action  of  his  moral  head  : 
and  thus,  a  necessity  exists,  perpetually,  in  his  very  na- 
ture, for  society.  Now,  the  gospel  discovers  to  us  no 
design  to  interfere  with  this  tendency,  but  it  uniformly 
promotes  it.  It  furnishes,  as  the  detail  will  evince  more 
fully,  a  moral  head  to  that  immense  multitude,  who  shall 
stand  ultimately  before  the  throne  of  Messiah,  and  go 
away  into  life  eternal.  It  puts  into  the  safe-keeping  of 
this  glorious  Head,  the  moral  destinies  of  the  body.  It 
sets  him  forth  as  bearing  a  representative  relation  to  his 
people,  both  in  his  active  obedience,  the  fulfilment  of  all 
the  holy  precepts  of  law  :  and  in  his  extinguishing  its 
penal  claim.  Always,  and  every  where,  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented as  obeying,  and  suffering,  and  dying,  and  rising, 
and  ascending,  and  reigning,  for  his  people. 
In  concluding  this  chapter,  let  us  remark. 

1.  It  is  vain  to  expect,  by  philosophical  research,  to 
discover  any  new  principles  in  morals.  Even  the  reve- 
lation of  Jesus  Christ,  is  but  the  modified  application  of 
that  morality,  which  was  of  old,  even  from  everlasting. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  Neo-nomianism,  or  that  which  af- 
firms under  the  gospel,  a  new  law  of  grace,  reduced  in 
the  severity  of  its  demands  to  the  present  capacities  of 
men,  is  without  foundation  in  the  word  of  God.  There 
is  not  even  a  partial  abrogation  of  the  demands  of  justice. 

3.  We  learn  hence,  how  to  value  the  doctrine  of  God's 
covenant  with  man.  It  contains  the  substance  of  all 
moral  rule. 

4.  The  importance  of  possessing  that  revelation,  which 
makes  known  the  only  remedy.  Where  there  is  no 
such  vision,  the  people  perish. 

16* 


186  THE  COVENANT  OL  GRACE. 

5.  How  solemn  the  obligation  upon  all  who  have  it, 
to  let  it  be  known  in  all  the  earth  !  JEIow  beautiful  upon 
the  mountains  are  the  feet  of  him,  that-  bringeth  good 
tidings  ! 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

In  treating  of  the  general  idea  of  a  covenant,  we  had 
occasion  to  remark,  that  it  consists  of  three  parts, 
viz  :  the  parties,  the  terms,  the  agreement.  These  all, 
we  found  when  discussing  the  covenant  of  works,  or 
that  which  God  established  with  Adam  ;  and  these  all, 
we  shall  find  in  the  following  enquiry  into  the  covenant 
of  grace. 

SECTION  I. 

The  parties  are  two,  viz:   God,  the  Father,  and  Jesus 

Christ,  the  Son. 

"  I  have  made  a  covenant  with  my  chosen."  Psalm 
lxxxix.  3.  This  passage  is  primarily  applicable  to  the 
son  of  Jesse,  but  principally  to  David's  greater  son. 
Who  is  meant  here,  by  God's  chosen  or  elect,  is  mani- 
ifest  from  the  language  of  Isaiah,  lxiv.  1.  "  Behold  my 
servant,  whom  I  uphold,  mine  elect — or  chosen  one — in 
whom  my  soul  delighteth."  Which  passage  is  applied 
Math.  xii.  18 — 20,  to  Jesus,  our  mediator.  And  in  Isa. 
lv.  3.  "  Incline  your  ear,  and  hearken  unto  me  ;  hear  and 
your  soul  shall  live  ;  and  I  will  make  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant with  you,  even  the  sure  mercies  of  David ;  that  is, 
of  the  beloved  one."  Here  you  have  the  language  of 
gospel  invitation  to  the  sinner :  God,  the  Father  invites 
him  to  come,  that  he  may  be  brought  actually  into  the 
covenant  of  his  own  Beloved  Son,  and  partake  of  its 
blessedness.     This  gives  us  incidental  evidence  (which  is 


THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE.  187 

the  strongest  kind  of  evidence)  of  the  existence  of  such 
covenant:  and  it  is  called  "  the  sure  mercies  of  the  Be- 
loved one,"  to  intimate  the  relation  which  the  Beloved 
sustains  to  it  as  surety  ,  and  the  consequent  permanency 
of  the  covenant,  and  safety  of  those  who  are  actually 
brought  into  it. 

This  language,  "I  have  made  a  covenant  with  my 
chosen"  also  intimates,  as  Mr.  Boston  remarks,  "the 
party  proposer — though  he  was  the  party  offended,  yet 
the  motion  for  a  covenant  comes  from  him.  The  Father 
of  mercies  beholding  a  lost  world,  his  bowels  of  mercy 
yearn  towards,  the  objects  that  his  sovereign  pleasure 
pitches  upon  :  and  that  mercy  seeks  a  vent  for  itself, 
that  it  may  be  shewn  to  the  miserable."  Body  of  Di- 
vinity, v.  ii.  4,  30. 

When  this  covenant  is  presented  anew  to  Abraham, 
the  blessing  of  salvation  which  it  goes  to  secure,  is  said 
to  have  been  "confirmed  of  God  in  Christ."  Gal.  in. 
17,  and  the  same  Apostle  assures  us,  that  its  establish- 
ment was  prior  to  the  existence  of  the  world.  Titus  i. 
2,  3.  "In  hope  of  eternal  life,  which  God,  that  can- 
not lie,  promised  before  the  world  began ;  but  hath 
in  due  time  manifested  his  word  through  preaching." 
How  God  should  promise  "eternal  life  before  the  world 
began,"  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  of  a  compact, 
agreement,  covenant,  with  the  Son,  on  the  behalf,  and  for 
the  benefit  of  his  people,  it  is  to  me  impossible  to  con- 
ceive. 

A  similar  testimony  we  have  in  Eph.  1.  4.  "  Accord- 
ing as  He  [God  the  Father]  hath  chosen  us  [all  believ- 
ers] in  him,  [Jesus  Christ]  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  Here  is  the  exercise  of  electing  love,  prior  to 
creation.  So  Rev.  xiii.  8.  and  xvii.  8.  "  Their  names 
were  written,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  in  the 
book  of  life  of  the  slain  Lamb.  "The  former  of  thesetexts, 
for  want  of  a  point  after  "  slain,"  is  equivocal,  and  hence 
some  suppose  it  refers  the  slaying  of  the  Lamb,  to  a 
period  anterior  to  the  world's  creation:  whereas,  the  plain 
and  obvious  intention,  in  both,  is,  to  refer  the  writing  of 
their  names  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life,  to  a  period  be- 
fore creation :  that  is,  they  were  chosen  in   Christ,  be- 


188  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

fore  the  world  was:  the  promise,  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  existed  before  creation.  To  whom  was  the 
promise  made  ?  There  was,  as  yet,  no  man — so  far  as 
we  know,  no  angel.  The  notion  of  a  promise,  implies  a 
person  to  whom  it  is  given — to  whom  there  is  a  pledge 
of  veracity.  To  suppose  a  promise,  without  two  per- 
sons at  least,  appears  to  me,  absurd.  The  idea  of  writ- 
ing their  names  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life,  implies  that 
the  Lamb,  i.  e.  Christ,  the  second  person  of  the  God- 
head, so  furnished  by  God,  as  to  be  capable  in  due  time 
of  suffering,  did  then  exist,  and  had  a  book  of  life. 

The  confirming  of  a  covenant,  of  or  by  God,  in  Christ, 
before  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  implies  that  there 
was  a  covenant,  prior  to  the  law — a  better  covenant 
than  that  given  to  Adam,  and  than  that  given  to  Moses, 
— better,  because  established  upon  better  promises ;  even 
the  pledged  veracity  of  God,  who  cannot  lie. 

SECTION  II. 

This  covenant  is  gracious,  because  eternal. 

The  benefits  of  it  are  all  gratuitously  bestowed.  Man 
to  whom  they  come,  has  no  claim  of  right,  in  himself, 
to  them.  That  which  is  not,  can  have  no  attributes,  no 
claims,  no  rights.  Man  did  not  exist,  and  yet  a  covenant 
was  made  between  God,  the  Father,  and  God,  the  Son, 
which  guaranteed  to  men  unspeakable  blessings — eternal 
consolations.  Is  it  possible  to  conceive,  any  thing  more 
perfectly  beyond  the  reach  of  human  merit — more  purely 
the  fruit  of  simple  benevolence,  on  the  part  of  God.  It 
is  "an  everlasting  covenant,"  not  only  in  reference  to 
its  results,  and  extension  into  the  future,  but  in  reference 
to  the  past — it  is  eternal — it  existed  before  the  world 
was.  "  I  was  set  up,"  says  the  wisdom  of  God,  that  is, 
the  Messiah,  "I  was  set  up — I  was  annointed — from 
everlasting,  from  the  begining,  or  ever  the  earth  was." 
Prov.  viii.  23,  This  annointing  of  the  Son  as  a  cove- 
nant head,  is  the  same  as  the  confirming  of  the  cove- 
nant of  God  in  Christ. 


THE  TERMS.  189 


SECTION  III. 


The  Terms. 

First,  The  stipulation  on  the  part  of  God  the  Father ; 
or  the  things  which  the  Son  was  required  to  do.  Every 
covenant  must  be  proposed  by  one  party  ;  and  each  of 
the  terms  must  be  suggested  first,  by  one.  The  scrip- 
tures represent  the  Father  as  originating  this  covenant. 
Its  source  is  his  everlasting  love — the  pure  fountain  of 
his  own  boundless  benevolence.  Hence,  the  apostolic 
benediction  speaks  of  the  love  of  God.  Now,  the  prop- 
osition of  the  Father  is,  that  the  Son  shall  fulfil  his  Fa- 
ther's will,  in  saving  lost  men.  This  can  be  effected, 
only  by  fulfilling  all  the  law,  under  whose  penalty 
the  scheme  of  redemption  contemplates  the  objects  of 
mercy.  This  scheme  is  remedial :  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
must  meet  the  penal,  and  the  preceptive  claims  of  law. 
Two  things,  therefore,  are  required  of  this  surety — 1st. 
He  must  suffer  whatever  is  included  in  the  law's  demand 
against  his  principal.  He  must  pay  the  debt  of  his  peo- 
ple's iniquities.  2d.  He  must  accomplish  the  righteous- 
ness required  of  Adam — He  must  fulfil  the  precept. 

"  But  further,"  says  Witsius,  vi.  249,  expressing  the 
same  truth,  "  as  Mediator  and  Surety,  he  is  under  the 
law,  in  another  manner,  and  that  two  ways.  1.  As  en- 
joining the  condition  of  perfect  obedience,  upon  which 
he  and  his,  were  to  partake  of  happiness.  2.  As  bind- 
ing to  the  penalty  due  to  the  sins  of  the  elect,  which  he 
had  taken  upon  himself."  These  are  the  two  items, 
which  the  original  institute  make  indispensable  to  the 
justification  of  fallen  Adam,  and  his  posterity:  and  con- 
sequently, the  remedial  scheme  must  meet  them  both. 

Secondly.  The  restipulation,  on  the  part  of  the  Son, 
viz  :  That  the  reward  of  life  to  all  his  people,  for  whom 
he  is  Surety,  shall  be  given  to  them  through  him,  and 
the  glory  of  their  salvation,  shall  be  his.  This  is  the 
valuable  consideration,  on  the  part  of  the  Father,  which 
constitutes  the  whole  transaction,  a  compact  or  covenant. 
The  Father  proposes,  and  promises  this  reward.  This, 
too,  is  indispensable  as  the  basis  of  moral  confidence. 


160  THE  AGREEMENT. 

Correspondent  to  this  promise  of  the  Father,  is  the 
Son's  engagement  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  Thus, 
there  is  a  mutual  pledge,  promise,  or  guarantee  and  se- 
curity, that  the  things  to  be  accomplished  by  the  cove- 
nant, shall  not  fail. 

Let  us  not  however,  suppose,  that  this,  like  contracts 
among  men,  results  from  a  feeling  of  want.  Fair  cove- 
nants with  us,  must  be  productive  of  mutual  advantages. 
The  design  is,  to  accomplish  some  useful  purpose.  The 
intent  and  purpose  of  this  covenant,  is  to  exhibit  the  di- 
vine perfections,  and  thus,  to  secure  a  revenue  of  glory 
to  God,  whilst  it  dispenses  infinite  blessings*  to  man. 
To  speak  of  gain  to  God,  absolutely,  is  improper  ;  be- 
cause he  is  infinite  in  all  perfections,  and  increase  or 
diminution,  in  regard  to  him,  are  ideas  wholly  inapplica- 
ble. Yet,  we  may  speak,  and  often  do  speak,  of  in- 
creasing the  glory  of  God.  Glory  is  the  manifestation 
of  excellence,  and  such  manifestation,  or  display  does 
admit  of  degrees,  even  in  reference  to  the  Creator.  Just 
in  proportion,  as  the  attributes  of  the  divine  character 
are  expressed  in  his  works  of  creation  and  providence, 
does  the  glory  of  God  increase.  Now,  the  covenant,  of 
which  we  speak,  guarantees  and  promises  the  manifes- 
tation of  God's  love,  in  a  manner  and  degree,  not  else- 
where to  be  found ;  and  therefore,  the  interests  of  his 
glory,  are  greatly  promoted  by  it. 

We  may  scarcely  allude  to  a  penalty,  where  the  cov- 
enanting parties  are  both  absolutely  infallible.  Penal 
sanction  implies  the  possibility  of  failure  ;  and  therefore, 
we  may  not  ask,  what  must  have  been  the  consequences 
to  Christ  and  his  people,  had  he  failed.  It  is  obvious, 
that  he  could  never  have  arisen  from  the  dead,  nor  his 
people  with  him.  But  it  is  not  wise  to  reason  from 
hypothesis,"  impossible  in  themselves,  and  we  forbear. 

SECTION  IV. 

The  agreement. 

The  principle,  that  mutual  consent  creates  moral  union, 
runs  deep  into  the  social  system  of  man.     The  laws  of 


THE  AGREEMENT.  191 

eternal  right  are  the  only  limit  to  it.  Whatever  is  law- 
ful and  right  to  be  done,  that,  two  or  more  persons  may- 
consent  and  agreee  to  do:  and  in  the  doing  of  it  they 
are  one.  The  voluntary  action  of  the  parties  is  neces- 
sary to  any  compact,  contracted  or  covenanted.  Did 
the  Father  and  Son  consent  to  carry  on  and  com- 
plete this  glorious  scheme  of  remedy,  for  a  ruined  race  ? 
Where  is  the  evidence  of  it?  Let  us  turn  to  Psalm  xl. 
6 — 10.  "  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  didst  not  desire; 
mine  ears  hast  thou  opened  :  burnt  offering,  and  sin  offer- 
ing hast  thou  not  required.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  come  ; 
in  the  volume  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me,  I  delight 
to  do  thy  will,  O  my  God,  yea  thy  law  is  within  my 
heart.  I  have  preached  righteousness  in  the  great  con- 
gregation ;  Lo  !  I  have  nof  refrained  my  lips,  Lord,  thou 
knowest."  Now  an  infallible  interpreter  tells  us,  that 
it  is  Jesus  who  here  speaks.  Heb.  x.  5.  "  Wherefore 
when  he  cometh  into  the  world  he  saith,  sacrifice  and 
offering  thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou  prepared 
me.  In  burnt  offerings,  and  sacrifices  for  sin,  thou  hast 
had  no  pleasure ;  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  come,  (in  the  vol- 
ume of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me)  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God."  A  comparison  of  these,  and  an  inspection  of  the 
Apostle's  reasoning,  must  satisfy  us,  that  the  Father's 
expressed  will  was,  that  the  Son  should  suffer — and  that 
the  son  acquiesced  in  the  same — I  delight  to  do  thy  will. 
Here  is  mutual  consent — the  agreement  of  the  parties. 
So  that  we  have  here,  all  the  essentials  of  a  covenant." 

To  the  same  purport  is  the  declaration  of  the  Lord, 
by  Isai.  xlii.  6.  where,  speaking  of  his  chosen  servant, 
who  should  not  cry,  nor  lift  up,  nor  cause  his  voice  to 
be  heard  in  the  street,  nor  break  the  bruised  read,  nor 
quench  the  smoking  flax,  he  says,  "  I  will  keep  thee,  and 
give  thee  for  a  covenant  of  the  people."  Jesus  is  the 
federal  head,  with  whom  the  Father  has  established  his 
covenant  for  his  people's  salvation.  Parallel  to  which 
passage  is,  xlix.  8.  where  the  Father  saith  of  Him, 
"  I  will  preserve  thee,  and  give  thee  for  a  covenant  of 
the  people,  to  establish  the  earth,  to  cause':  to  inherit 
the  desolate  heritages ;  That  thou  mayest  say  to  the 
prisoners,  Go  forth."     The  grand  purpose  is  here  stated, 


192  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  COVENANT. 

to  release  the  prisoners,  from  the  chains  of  sin,  to  estab- 
lish the  great  principles  of  moral  government — to  remedy 
the  mischiefs  of  the  fall,  by  confirming  the  principles  of 
the  original  institute. 

Hence,  Messiah  is  called  the  Messenger  of  the  cove- 
nant— the  one  who  "was  sent  of  God  as  an  ambassador. 
All  these,  and  a  thousand  other  testimonies  of  scripture, 
clearly  shew  the  consent  and  co-operation  of  God,  our 
heavenly  Father,  and  Jesus,  our  divine  Redeemer,  in  the 
glorious  federal  compact,  which  secures  the  eternal  well- 
fare  of  all  them  that  believe. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  COVENANT.   1.  ON  THE  PART 
OF  THE  LORD'S  SERVANT.   2.  ON  THE  FATHER'S 

PART. 

SECTION  I. 

Jesus  did  obey  all  the  precepts  of  the  law  of  God,  and 
thus  fulfilled  all  righteousness. 

Preparatory  to  this,  we  ought  to  remark,  that  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  he  assumed  human  nature,  in  a  miracu- 
lous manner.  This  was  necessary  to  the  work  he  had 
undertaken.  The  obedience  of  man,  is  that  to  which 
the  life  of  man  is  promised.  An  angel's  obeying,  would 
not  have  been  the  establishment  of  the  original  law  ;  nor 
could  life  for  man  have  been  claimed  as  the  reward  of 
angelic  obedience.  By  man  came  death,  and  conse- 
quently, by  man,  must  come  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  It  was  indispensable  that  he  have  a  body,  and 
be  in  full  possession  of  humanity  :  that  he  might  obey, 
and  die  for  man. 

That  he  did  run  the  round  of  human  duties,  the  his- 


Christ's  obedience.  193 

tory  of  his  life  fully  testifies.  ';  He  was  subject  unto 
his  parents" — he  respected  the  laws  of  his  country — 
he  punctiliously  regarded  tli3  laws  of  God — he  submit- 
ted to  every  institution  of  religion.  When  John  "  for- 
bad him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee, 
and  comest  thou  to  me  ?  he  answering,  said  unto  him, 
Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil 
all  righteousness."  No  duty  was  he  ever  known  to 
neglect — no  sin  was  he  ever  known  to  commit — he  did 
no  evil,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth — he  went 
about  doing  good. 

Of  his  perfect  compliance  with  the  whole  require- 
ments of  law,  the  most  satisfactory  evidence  is  present- 
ed, in  the  testimony  of  the  court,  which  handed  him 
over  to  the  executioner.  Every  species  of  malignity 
had  been  at  work  from  the  beginning  ;  and  all  possible 
ingenuity  had  been  exercised  to  detect  in  his  conduct, 
some  omission,  or  some  actual  sin,  that  might  lead  to 
his  condemnation.  But  after  malignity  and  genius, 
under  its  influence,  had  exhausted  their  efforts,  the 
judge  is  constrained  to  declare,  when  delivering  him  up 
to  the  will  of  his  malignant  foes,  "  I  find  no  fault  in 
him."  It  was  never,  even  attempted  to  be  proved,  that 
he  had  done  any  thing  contrary  to  the  pure  and  holy 
law  of  God.  So  perfectly  had  his  life  carried  convic- 
tion to  the  understandings  of  his  enemies,  of  his  spot- 
less purity;  and  so  fully  had  it  overawed  their  spirits, 
that  no  attempt  was  ever  made  to  prove  any  immoralitv 
or  impiety  against  him. 

Hence,  an  Apostle  affirms,  "  Christ  is  the  end  of 
law  for  righteousness,  to  every  one  that  believeth," 
Rom.  x,  4.  He  is  the  end,  or  termination  of  the  law 
ceremonial — it  is  fulfilled  in  him,  and  comes  to  a  close 
and  must  cease.  Ho  is  the  end  at  which  it  aimed,  to 
which  it  constantly  directed  the  eye  of  faith.  He  is  th- 
end,  or  fulfilment  and  completion  of  the  moral  law- 
All  its  requirements  are  met  by  him.  It  is  a  transcript 
of  the  moral  perfections  of  God — an  expression  of  his 
holy  will ;  and  wherever  these  perfections  exist,  as 
qualities  of  the  mind,  they  will  shew  themselves  by 
their  accordance  with  the  law.  But  in  the  person  oi' 
17 


194  Christ's  obedience,  vicarious. 

Jesus,  all  holy  properties  are  found  in  measurele^ 
abundance  ;  and,  consequently,  their  perfect  coinci- 
dence with  the  precepts  of  the  divine  law,  was  to  have 
been  expected.  "  In  him  dwelt  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily" — as  embodied — as  incarnate,  he  pos- 
sessed all  divine  perfections,  and  consequently,  all  those 
requisite  to  a  fulfilment  of  the  moral  law. 

On  this  point,  I  shall  not  detain  you  ;  because,  the 
matter  of  fact  is  so  obvious  ;  and  because,  no  person 
denies  the  truth  of  it.  Even  infidelity — in  its  Pagan, 
Mahomedan  and  Christian  forms, — all  infidels  have  ac- 
knowledged the  spotless,  moral  character  of  Jesus  our 
Redeemer.  There  is  a  glory  and  a  splendour  in  the 
Sun  of  Righteousness,  at  which  the  Vulture  eyes  of 
infidelity  blench ;  on  which,  only  the  Eagle  eye  of  a 
sanctified  faith,  can  look  with  unqualing  steadfast- 
ness. 

SECTION  II. 

The  obedience  of  Christ  is  vicarious:   or,    in   other 
words,  he,  in  all  this,  acted  for  his  people,  repre- 
sentatively. 

On  this  subject,  three  opinions  have  been  advanced. 
1.  That  the  obedience,  or  righteousness  of  Christ,  was, 
in  no  sense  vicarious.  But  on  the  contrary,  that  he 
acted  simply  for  himself,  as  a  moral  being — that  all  he 
did,  grew  out  of,  and  was  necessary  to  his  moral  rela- 
tions, and  went  simply  to  meet  the  requirements  of  law 
upon  himself,  personally,  and  had  nothing  to  do,  and 
could  have  nothing  to  do,  with  any  other  moral  being]; 
only,  so  far  as  his  example  might  have  a  moral  force. 
This  way,  go  various  classes  of  heretics,  and  the  mo- 
ther of  all  abominations. 

2.  Others  maintain,  that  Christ's  righteousness  was 
necessary  for  himself,  personally,  and  also,  that  he 
acted  for  his  people,  in  the  accomplishment  of  it.  They 
view  him,  as  individually,  under  the  law,  apart  from 
the  consideration  of  his  representative  character,  and  of 
course,  bound  for  himself,  to  fulfil  it :  but  also,  that  he 


Christ's  obedience,  vicarious.  195 

was   under   the  law,   federally,  for  his  people,   and  for 
them  bound  to  obey. 

This  opinion  is  deemed  erroneous  ;  although  not  so 
utterly  off  the  foundation  of  a  sinner's  hope,  as  the  for- 
mer. It  is  erroneous,  because,  1.  Christ  never  existed 
in  his  Mediatorial  character,  except  as  a  representative 
head.  His  moral  headship  existed  by  covenant,  from 
eternity,  and  his  susception  of  our  nature,  was  the  le- 
gal result,  and  constituted  part  and  parcel  of  the  cove- 
nant itself.  Now,  if  the  God-man — the  Messiah,  never 
existed  in  any  other  character,  he  could  never  be  bound 
in  any  other  :  and  consequently,  his  righteousness 
could  not  be  for  himself,  but  only  for  his  people. 

2.  Another  phase  of  the  same  thought  is,  that  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  never  had  a  separate  existence 
— it  never  was  a  human  person  ;  and  therefore,  a  right- 
eousness for  its  sake,  could  not  be  necessary. 

3.  The  Messiah  is  a  divine  person,  and  to  talk  of  a 
divine  person  being  bound  to  procure  righteousness,  as 
the  title  for  himself  to  eternal  life,  is,  at  the  very  least, 
to  approximate  blasphemy.  A  divine  person  not  enti- 
tled to  eternal  felicity,  unless  he  go  through  certain  acts 
of  obedience  to  law  !  The  thing  is  preposterous.  He 
has  "  life  in  himself,"  eternally,  necessarily,  and  un- 
changeably. For  himself  he  could  not  merit  eternal 
life.  A  person  cannot  earn  by  his  merits,  what  he  al- 
ready possesses  eternally,  and  must  forever  possess. 
He  needs  no  such  merit — he  can  have  none  such. 
The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not,  nor  is  it  conceivable 
it  can  be  his  title,  by  which  he  holds  a  place  in  heaven. 
The  fountain  of  life  cannot  be  dependent  upon  the 
stream  that  issues  fro  in  it,  for  either  the  beginning,  or  the 
continuance  of  its  own  existence.  I  therefore,  think, 
that  the  doctrine  here  rejected,  is  dangerous.  It  has 
been  unadvisedly  admitted,  by  some  sound  men  with- 
out, as  I  fondly  hope  and  believe,  duly  weighing  the 
consequences.  Should  we  concede  that  Christ's  right- 
eousness was  necessary  for  himself,  I  see  not  how  we 
can  maintain  by  sound  reason,  his  Godhead  on  the  one 
hand  against  the  Socinians ;  or  the  imputation  of  his 


196  ATONEMENT. 

righteousness   on   the   other,  against  the  Pelagians,  Ar- 
minians  and  Socinians. 

3.  The  third  opinion  is  the  true  evangelical  doctrine, 
that  Christ's  whole  righteousness  was  wrought  out  for 
his  people.  Not  being  in  any  sense  necessary  for  his 
own  justification,  in  order  to  life,  it  goes  entire,  to  the 
benefit  of  his  people.  Having  never  performed  an  act 
of  obedience,  in  any  other  character,  than  that  of  a  re- 
presentative, none  others,  but  his  represented  ones,  can 
possibly  be  interested  in  it.  But  I  may  not  here  anti- 
cipate the  doctrine  of  imputation. 

SECTION  III. 

Jesus  did  satisfy  the  penal  claims  of  law  for  his  people : 
or  the  doctrine  of  atonement. 

1.  "Atonement,  (kapher — xata,k,kayrl.) — This  is  the 
characteristic  appellation  of  the  doctrine.  It  occurs  fre- 
quently in  our  English  translation  of  the  scriptures,  but 
only  once  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Hebrew  word 
which  is  so  translated,  signifies  a  covering.  The  verb 
means  to  cover,  to  draiv  over;  whence  it  comes,  by  an  easy 
and  natural  process,  to  signify  to  forgive,  to  expiate,  to 
propitiate  ;  that  is,  to  cover  an  offence  from  the  eye  of 
offended  justice  by  means  of  an  adequate  compensation. 
The  term  is  applied  to  the  mercy-seat,  which  was  the 
lid  or  covering  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed symbol  closely  connected  with  the  presentation 
of  sacrifices  on  the  day  of  expiation.  The  idea,  that 
seems  to  be  expressed  by  this  word,  is  that  of  averting 
some  dread  consequence  by  means  of  a  substitutionary 
interposition.  It  thus  fitly  denotes  the  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation from  sin  and  wrath,  by  a  ransom  of  infinite  worth. 
The  Greek  word  more  closely  harmonises  with  the  Eng- 
lish term  atonement.  It  signifies  reconciliation,  or  the 
removal  of  some  hinderance  to  concord,  fellowship,  or 
good  agreement.  This  is  the  true  import  of  the  term 
at-one-ment,  the  act  of  reconciling  or  uniting  parties  at 
variance.  '  The  next  day,  he  (Moses)  showed  himself 
unto  them,  as  they  strove ;  and  would  have  set  them  at 


ATONEMENT.  197 

one  again,  saying,  Sirs,  ye  are  brethren ;  why  do  ye 
wrong  one  to  another?'  Acts  vii.  26.  Sin  has  placed 
God  and  man  apart  from  one  another  ;  all  harmony  be- 
tween them  has  been  broken  up;  and  those  who  once 
dwelt  together  in  perfect  concord,  have  been  separated 
and  disjoined.  What  Christ  has  done  has  had  the  effect 
of  reconciling  the  parties — of  restoring  them  to  a  state 
of  one-ness  with  each  other.  The  Deity  is  at-oned  ;  God 
is  brought  to  be  at-one  with  his  people  ;  the  work  of 
the  Redeemer  is  a  proper  at-one-ment.  'We  joy  in 
God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have 
received  the  at-one-ment.'  "  Symington  on  Atonement, 
p.  7. 

This  extract  gives  a  clear  and  honest  exhibition  of  the 
term  atonement :  and  I  only  add,  that  the  strict  and  prop- 
er meaning  of  the  word,  refers  to  the  consequence — the 
effect  of  the  death  of  Christ,  rather  than  to  the  cause 
whence  it  proceeds.  The  reconciliation  is  an  effect ; 
the  satisfaction  rendered  by  the  blood,  death,  suffer- 
ings of  our  Saviour,  is  the  cause.  It  will  be  important 
to  bear  in  mind  also,  that  in  theological  discussions,  the 
former,  rather  than  the  latter,  forms  the  subject  matter 
of  controversy.  They  who  deny  the  penal  and  vicari- 
ous nature  of  Christ's  death,  do,  for  the  most  part,  ad- 
mit this  reconciliation,  as  a  result.  The  questions  at  is- 
sue, relate  to  the  nature  of  the  connexion  between  the 
sufferings  of  the  Redeemer  and  the  at-one-ment,  or  bring- 
ing together  of  the  parties  who  were  at-odds  ;  viz  :  God 
and  man. 

2.  As  to  the  truth,  that  Jesus  did  suffer  and  die,  there 
is  no  dispute.  As  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  his  suffer- 
ings, there  is.  Let  us  look  a  little  into  the  matter;  and 
(1.)  as  to  his  whole  life.  He  was  born  under  circum- 
stances well  adapted  to  make  this  world  a  scene  of  suf- 
ferings. He  lived  amongst  a  poor  and  oppressed  peo- 
ple, and  though  history  is  silent  on  the  subject,  we  may 
well  suppose  he  had  at  least  the  ordinary  trials  of  such 
a  lot.  He  could  not  indeed,  be  well  styled  "  a  man  of 
sorrows,  and  acquainted  with  grief,"  had  he  lived  thirty 
years,  free  from  great  and  sore  afflictions,  and  had  his 
grief3  and  sorrows  been  of  only  three  years  continuance. 
17* 


198  ATONEMENT. 

(2)  The  next  point,  claiming  our  attention,  is  Gethsem- 
ane.  Here,  we  have  evidence  of  extreme  anguish — ex- 
cruciating agony.  "  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful 
even  unto  death."  "  And  being  in  an  agony,  he  prayed 
more  earnestly  ;  and  his  sweat  was,  as  it  were,  great 
drops  of  blood,  falling  down  to  the  ground."  It  would 
be  difficult  to  present  more  unequivocal  proof,  of  extreme 
sorrow,  and  suffering,  than  is  here  displayed.  How 
can  we  account  for  this  agonizing  exclamation,  and  this 
bloody  sweat?  (a)  Can  it  all  result  from  the  foresight 
he  had  of  the  shame  and  sufferings,  that  awaited  him 
on  the  morrow  ?  Is  it  nature  sinking  under  the  load  of 
contumely  and  the  bodily  pains  which  are  inseparable 
from  a  death  by  crucifixion?  Is  not  the  soul  of  Jesus 
sustained  by  the  consciousness  of  rectitude  ?  And  does 
not  conscious  rectitude  give  fortitude,  and  nerve  the  heart 
for  heroic  endurance  ?  Who  will  charge  the  Son  of 
God  with  pucilanimity  ?  It  is  therefore,  no  satisfactory 
account  of  the  facts,  to  say,  that  his  sufferings  are  the 
result  of  anticipated  pains.  Did  ever  the  most  hardened 
wretch,  with  conscience  stinging,  like  ten  thousand  scor- 
pions, sweat  blood  at  every  pore  ?  Oh  no  !  To  suppose 
that  alone,  to  be  the  cause  of  this  baptism  of  blood,  were 
to  exhibit  the  Redeemer  of  the  world  as  destitute  of  he- 
roic fortitude.  This  cannot  be  the  reason.  And  yet 
there  was  no  visible,  no  physical  cause:  what  then  ?  (b) 
Some  invisible  agency  there  must  have  been  :  what  was 
it?  I  answer,  The  foul  spirits  of  hell — the  leader  of 
the  fallen  angels  and  his  bands.  These  were  per- 
mitted by  God,  to  assault  him,  and  try  their  last  efforts 
to  turn  him  from  his  purpose.  What  the  forms  of  attack 
— how  malignant  spirits  operate  to  cause  pain  to  other 
spirits,  we  know  not.  But  several  reasons  conduce  to 
the  opinion  here  expressed.  And  first,  it  is  an  assault 
most  reasonably  to  have  been  expected.  The  purpose 
of  Jesus  was  to  die,  and  "  through  death,  to  destroy  him 
that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil."  Most 
reasonably,  therefore,  might  he  expect  him  to  put  forth 
one  more  desperate  struggle  to  maintain  his  usurped  do- 
minion over  men.  Satan  summons  all  his  legions  and 
puts  the  issue  in  a  last  and  fearful  assault.  "He  shall 
bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel."     Now, 


ATONEMENT.  199 

what  might  be   reasonably  looked  for,   is  not   without 
some  allusion  to  it  in  scripture. 

For  I  remark  again,  Jesus  had  been  led  up  of  the  spirit 
into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  Devil :  and  he 
was  tempted.  Satan  practiced  many  arts  to  lead  him 
aside  from  the  path  of  duty.  "  And  when  the  Devil  had 
ended  all  the  temptation,  he  departed  from  him  for  a 
season."  Luke  iv.  13.  (a#pt  xatpov)  until  a  season. 
This  word  rendered  for,  properly  means  until,  and  is 
mostly  so  translated.  It  marks  properly,  the  limit  of 
time.  The  very  same  expression  occurs,  Acts.  xiii.  11. 
"thou  shalt  be  blind,  not  seeing  the  sun  for  a  season," 
— until  some  period  referred  to.  So,  Luke  i.  20.  "thou 
shalt  be  dumb,  and  not  able  to  speak  until  the  day  that 
these  things  shall  be  performed."  So,  Luke  xvii.  27. 
"  they  did  eat,  they  drank — until  the  day  that  Noe  en- 
tered into  the  ark."  "  The  Devil  departed  from  him 
until  a  season."  What  season?  If  the  season  of  a  sec- 
ond assault  ever  occurred,  it  must  be  that  before  us. 
We  have  no  account  of  any  other.  The  language  ob- 
viously implies,  that  the  tempter  was  again  to  return, 
and  here  is  the  only  period  to  which  we  can  refer  his  re- 
turn. On  this  supposition,  we  see  good  reason  for  this 
sorrow  unto  death — these  sighs  and  groans,  and  bloody 
sweat.  Foiled  in  his  various  attacks — disappointed  in 
his  malignant  attempt  to  cut  off  the  babe  of  Bethlehem  ; 
a  hundred  times  thwarted  and  forced  to  abandon  his 
ground  and  leave  the  subjects  of  demonical  possession  ; 
utterly  unsuccessful  in  his  long  and  laboured  assault 
upon  Jesus  at  his  entrance  upon  his  public  ministry, 
Satan  has  looked  upon  the  growing  interests  of  the  Sa- 
viour's kingdom,  with  tormenting  anxie'y.  He  has 
marked  His  steady  advance  toward  the  completion  of 
his  purpose  and  his  work.  The  more  he  contemplates 
the  perfection  of  our  Redeemer's  character,  the  more 
does  his  own  malignity  lash  him  up  to  higher  and  more 
determined  wrath.  The  nearer  our  Saviour  approxi- 
mates the  consumation  of  his  work,  the  more  terribly 
fixed  and  desperate  and  determined  becomes  the  opposi- 
tion of  his  deadly  foe  :  and  now  "  the  hour  is  come," 
and  no  time  is  to  be  lost ;  he  therefore,  rallies   to  the 


200  ATONEMENT. 

charge  all  the  mighty  fiends  of  hell,  and  down  upon  the 
solitary  mourner  in  Gethsemane,  he  pours  his  malignant 
legions.  Hence  this  sorrow  unto  death  ;  hence  these 
sighs,  and  tears,  and  groans,  and  bloody  sweat;  hence  this 
agonizing  prayer,  "Be  not  far  from  me;  for  trouble  is  near; 
for  there  is  none  to  help.  Many  bulls  have  compassed 
me  :  strong  bulls  of  Bashan  have  beset  me  round.  They 
gaped  upon  roe  with  their  mouths,  as  a  raving  and  a 
roaring  lion*"  Ps.  xxii.  11.  And  hence  resulted  the 
fact  before  alluded  to,  "I  saw  Satan  as  lightening,  fall 
from  heaven:"  for  here  was  fought  the  sorest,  and  the 
last  battle.  The  first  onset  was  that  which  caused 
mourning  in  Rama ;  the  second  general  assault  was  in 
the  wilderness  of  Judea,  and  the  third  here,  at  the  very 
heart  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  it  consists  of 
three  distrmct  actions,  for  Jesus  went  and  came  once 
and  again  :  after  which  the  agony  ceased  and  he  returned 
to  his  disciples,  and  immediately  delivered  himself  up  to 
his  fleshly  foes. 

The  (c)  third  reference  is  to  the  cross.  Jesus  was 
nailed  to  the  tree  and  endured  unutterable  things.  These 
may  be  viewed,  in  reference  to  his  body  and  his  soul. 
The  body  of  the  Redeemer  endured  whatever  of  pain 
and  anguish  can  result  from  this  form  of  death.  And  it  is 
difficult  for  us,  in  this  day.  when  his  blessed  gospel  has 
meliorated  the  condition  of  all  men ;  even  of  those,  who 
still  treat  its  messages  with  contempt,  duly  to  estimate 
such  sufferings.  Now,  even  when  justice  is  most  se- 
vere and  determined  in  taking  vengeance,  the  execution 
of  her  sentence,  is  accompanied  with  many  molifying 
circumstances.  The  criminal  is  ordinarily  launched 
upon  the  unknown  ocean  of  a  vast  eternity,  in  the  most 
easy  and  expeditious  manner.  The  very  executioner 
soothes  and  sympathises  with  the  sufferer.  Not  so,  the 
sorrows  of  our  Saviour.  Spiked  fast  to  the  cross,  whilst 
his  body  is  in  full  health  and  midlife  vigour,  he  is  lifted 
up  and  suspended  by  his  lacerated  hands  and  feet,  until 
worn  out  with  intense  agony,  the  body  dies.  Scarcely 
does  savage  barbarity  ever  exceed,  among  the  most  fe- 
rocious tribes  of  wild  men,  the  ingenuity  of  this  form  of 
torture.     Meanwhile,  he  is  the  object  of  profane  scoffing 


ATONEMENT.  201 

and  jeers — he  is  cursed  and  ridiculed,  aud  refused  the 
most  simple  and  customary  anodyne,  a  refreshing  drink. 
Hardly  dares  the  tear  of  sympathy  to  trickle  down  in  si- 
lence, and  the  sigh  of  compassion  is  smothered,  even  in 
the  bosom  that  gave  him  birth.  "  I  have  trodden  the 
wine  press  alone,  and  of  the  people  there  was  none  with 
me." 

But  we  are  mingling  with  his  bodily  pains,  things  that 
ought  to  be  viewed  separately.  The  agonies  of  his  hu- 
man spirit,  "  when  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering 
for  sin" — these  are  indeed  his  sufferings.  In  compari- 
son with  these,  all  his  bodily  pains  are  nothing.  Dread- 
ful as  they  were,  they  cannot  be  compared  with  what  his 
soul  experienced.  For  the  contemplation  of  these,  we  have 
not  much  express  scripture.  This,  I  think,  is  designed  to 
prevent  us  from  indulging  a  too  curious  and  minute  scru- 
tiny. General  indeas  only  are  thrown  out ;  to  these  be 
our  attention  confined.  Two  forms  of  sufferings  will 
appear,  by  an  inspection  of  the  scriptures  ;  viz  :  the  pos- 
itive goings  forth  of  God's  wrath  ;  and  the  withdrawal 
of  all  sensible  evidences  of  his  love. 

God  the  Father  commissions  the  sword,  Zech.  xiii.  7. 
"Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  shepherd,  and  against 
the  man  that  is  my  fellow  ;  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts  : 
smite  the  shepherd."  So,  Isa.  xliii.  10.  "  It  pleased 
the  Lord  to  bruise  him  ;  he  hath  put  him  to  grief;  when 
thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin  ;  2.  Cor.  v. 
21.  "  He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us."  That  is,  he 
made  him  a  curse,  a  sin  offering — Eph.  v.  2.  "An  of- 
fering and  a  sacrifice  for  sin."  And  bv  the  reply  to  Pe- 
ter, "  Put  up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath  ;  the  cup  which 
my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink  it  ?"  it  is 
manifest,  that  the  sufferings  were  from  the  Father.  "  It 
became  God — to  make  the  Captain  of  salvation  perfect 
through  sufferings."   Heb.  n.  10. 

In  view  of  those  texts,  it  appears  to  me  impossible  to 
evade  the  conclusion,  that  God's  displeasure  was  mani- 
fested, his  wrath  was  poured  into  the  cup.  Nor  ought 
our  ignorance  as  to  the  manner  in  which  this  may  have 
been  effected,  to  throw  a  straw  of  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  our  faith.     Jesus,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  bore  the 


202  ATONEMENT. 

sins  of  his  people,  and  God  laid  on  him  those  tokens  of 
his  displeasure,  which  otherwise  must  have  fallen  upon 
us.  Our  inadequacy  to  comprehend  what  God  did — or 
how  he  could  kindle  upon  him  the  burning  fire,  through 
which  he  was  offered  up  a  burnt  offering,  is  no  reason 
at  all  in  the  face  of  the  fact,  and  the  necessity  of  the  fact. 
It  pleased  the  Father  to  bruise  him — he  did  bruise  him  ; 
he  did  make  him  to  suffer  :  and  the  bitterest  ingredient 
in  the  cup,  is  the  withdrawal  of  his  countenance.  "  My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me."  My  timed 
followers,  and  even  Peter,  so  bold  and  confident — all 
have  forsaken  me  and  fled ;  but  O  my  Father  !  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me  ?  Thus  hangs  the  man  of  Calvary — 
abandoned  of  all  men  and  forsaken  of  God — bearing 
alone  the  reproach  and  the  sin  of  his  people — burning 
as  a  sacrifice  in  the  fire  of  God's  eternal  spirit.  Heb. 
ix.  14. 

Here  let  us  stand  still — nor  prosecute  the  enquiries 
vain.  How  could  a  holy  soul  suffer?  How  could  a  holy 
Farther  inflict  it?  How.  much  did  he  suffer?  Could  he 
suffer  enough  in  so  short  a  space  of  time,  to  satisfy  for 
all  the  sins  of  God's  redeemed  ?  Nay,  but  O,  vain  man! 
withhold  thy  steps — and  put  off  thy  shoes  from  off  thy 
feet :  this  is  holy  ground.  Canst  thou  measure  the 
depths  of  God's  wisdom  ?  Hast  thou  a  measure  or  a 
scale  to  estimate  pain,  and  take  an  exact  account  of  a- 
gonies  ?  Tell  me  then,  the  value  of  that  sweat  drop, 
that  oozes  from  his  blessed  brow,  as  he  lies  yonder  on 
the  cold  earth  in  Gethsemane  ! — and  that  blood  gore, 
that  overtakes  it,  and  mingles  as  they  trickle  down  his 
blessed  face.  What  is  their  value  ?  And  that  heart 
bursting  sigh — "  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass" — 
And  those  crimson  streamlets,  from  his  gracious  tem- 
ples.— And  those  flowing  currents  from  his  pierced  and 
beneficent  hands  ?  What  dost  thou  deem  all  these  to 
be  worth  ?  And  that  agonizing  shriek,  "  Eli,  Eli,  lama 
Sabachthani" — Weighed  in  thy  balances,  Oh,  philoso- 
pher, what  is  its  worth  ? 

But  now,  if  there  is  more  folly  than  presumption,  in 
any  attempt  at  reply  ;  if  there  is  less  philosophy,  than 
piety,_then  stay  thy  hand  ;  for  "  the  Lord  is  in  his  holy 


ATONEMENT.  203 

temple,  let  all  the  earth  keep  silence  before  him."  Heb. 
2,20. 

3.  The  magnitude  of  the  Saviour's  sufferings,  is  there- 
fore, incomprehensible.  Whatever  was  in  that  cup,  he 
drank  it.  The  requisitions  of  law,  he  met  them  all. 
We  pretend  not  to  define  or  measure.  This  only  is 
manifest  from  the  proceeding ;  they  were  unutterably 
great — unutterable  even  by  himself.  Articulate  speech 
fails,  and  the  stronger  language  of  sighs  and  groans  ne- 
ver could  reach  and  express  the  whole  truth. 

One  other  consideration  let  me  present.  If  bodily 
pains  were  all  the  Saviour  endured — if,  as  some  will 
have  it,  he  experienced  no  curse — suffered  nothing  but 
the  agonies  of  body,  inseparable  from  death  by  crusi- 
fixion  ;  then  why  this  great  commotion  ?  Why  this 
Gethsemane  scene  ?  Where  is  the  fortitude  of  the  man 
of  Calvary  ?  Why  this  complaint — this  exclamation 
on  the  cross  ?  Has  Jesus  less  moral  heroism  than  the 
blaspheming  murderer  at  his  side  ?  If  his  pains  were 
merely  bodily,  he  surely  suffers  in  comparison  even 
with  thousands  of  malefactors.  He  suffers  in  compari- 
son with  Stephen  and  James,  and  Paul  and  Peter,  and 
ten  thousand  of  his  martyred  disciples,  in  after  ages, 
who  endured  greater  torments  than  he  did,  and  exulted 
in  the  same.  How  many  blessed  martyrs  have  gone  rejoic- 
ing to  the  stake,  and  poured  forth  their  hymns  of  praise, 
and  their  songs  of  thanksgiving  from  the  midst  of  the 
burning  flame  ?  If  therefore,  the  Redeemer's  sufferings 
were  no  greater  than  theirs,  his  fortitude  was  less,  and 
the  very  object  of  them,  according  to  those  who  deny 
their  vicarious  nature,  is  defeated.  If  he  suffered, 
merely  to  give  an  example  of  patient  endurance  what  a 
complete  failure  !  Now,  in  opposition  to  all  this,  we 
maintain  both  their  vicarious  nature,  and  their  tran- 
scendant  magnitude.  See  if  there  be  any  sorrow  like 
unto  my  sorrow  ! 

4.  The  sorrows  of  the  Saviour's  life  and  death,  were 
all  by  appointment  of  God,  the  Father.  To  this  the 
texts  above  quoted,  are  plain  and  pertinent.  To  these 
may  be  added  a  few  moie.  Isa.  liii,  6,  "  the  Lord  hath 
laid    on  him,  the    iniquity  of  us  all."     Acts,  vii,  20, 


204  LEGAL  SUBSTITUTION. 

"  Him  being  delivered  by  the  determined  counsel  and 
foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked 
hands  have  crucified  and  slain."  Acts  4,  27,  28, 
"both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilot,  were  gathered  together, 
For  to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  de- 
termined before  to  be  done."  It  is  surely  a  work  of 
supererogation  to  labour  the  proof  of  a  position  so 
plainly  taught  in  the  scriptures.  Jesus  was  appointed 
by  the  Father  to  these  sufferings.  He  put  the  cup  into 
his  Son's  hand — and  even  when  that  son,  with  sighs 
and  groans,  and  tears  and  bloody  swreat,  entreated  that 
the  cup  might  pass  from  him,  the  Father  refused  to  re- 
move it.  That  so  it  must  be,  was  the  Father's  will, 
and  unchangeable. 

5.  These  sufferings  were  required  by  the  eternal  laws 
of  right,  or  they  were  not.  We  present  either  alterna- 
tive, to  all  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  satisfac- 
tion by  Christ's  death.  We  deem,  that  other  alternative, 
there  can  be  none.  That  Jesus  should  suffer,  was 
either  right,  or  wrong,  not  in  reference  to  the  mere 
human  agency,  concerned,  but  in  regard  to  the  act  of 
God,  in  allotting  this  portion  to  him.  In  this  aspect  of 
the  case,  no  man  who  accredits  the  Bible,  can  hesitate. 
All  indeed,  but  the  Atheist,  must  at  once,  reject  the  lat- 
ter. Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?  If 
therefore,  it  was  right  in  God  his  Father,  so  to  appoint 
his  own  Son  to  suffer,  we  are  thrown  upon  another  di- 
lemma, viz  :  Jesus  must  have  been  liable,  in  the  eye 
of  the  just  and  holy  law  of  God,  so  to  suffer,  either  on 
account  of  his  own  personal  sin,  or  that  of  others,  as- 
sumed by  him.  The  former  to  affirm  is  blasphemy,  the 
latter  leads  us  to — 

SECTION  IV. 

The  doctrine  of  legal  substitution. 

1.  Substitution  is  the  removal  of  one  thing  and  the 
putting  of  another  in  its  place.  The  golden  shields, 
made  by  Solomon,  and  hung  up  in  the  temple,  were 
removed,  and  brasen  shields   were  put  in  their  place — 


SUBSTITUTION.  205 

Were  substituted  for  them.  Saul's  armour,  was  substi- 
tuted for  David's  sling  and  stone  ;  but  afterwards,  these 
were  restored.  Anciently,  chains  of  iron  were  used 
for  the  rigging  of  ships,  and  leather  for  sails  ;  the  mod- 
erns have  substituted  cords  and  canvass.  Horses,  a 
few  years  since,  were  exclusively  used  to  draw  car- 
riages with  passengers,  from  one  part  to  another  ;  now, 
to  a  large  extent,  steam  engines,  are  put  in  their  place — 
are  substituted  for  them. 

So  one  man  is  often  substituted,  or  put  in  the  place 
of  another.  The  citizen  soldier  is  allowed,  by  our 
laws,  to  put  another  in  his  place,  in  the  ranks  of  his 
country's  defence — the  latter  is  substituted  for  the 
former. 

2.  This  change  of  place,  whenever  the  law  covers  and 
sanctions  it,  is  properly  called  legal  substitution  ;  and 
can  occur  only  in  reference  to  personal  acts  ;  and  when 
one  person  is  put  in  the  place  of  another,  with  a  view 
to  his  acting  for  him,  it  is  called  vicarious  substitution; 
and  is  but  another  name  for  the  doctrine  of  federal  re- 
presentation, or  rather  is  the  preparatory  to  such  repre- 
sentation. 

Now,  in  order  to  legal  or  vicarious  substitution, 
there  must  be  a  person  bound  by  law,  to  some  certain 
duties — secondy,  a  person  not  so  bound  under  law,  who 
may  be  put  under  the  legal  obligations  of  the  other, 
upon  his  removal ;  and  thirdly,  a  person  representing 
the  law  and  ruling  in  the  whole  transaction. 

In  the  case  of  military  service,  just  referred  to,  the 
principal  is  held  under  law,  to  certain  services,  involv- 
ing laborious  efforts  and  peril  of  life.  The  law  has  a 
claim  upon  him,  which  it  will  not  forego.  But  as  the 
claim  is  for  specific  services  and  the  sufferings  and  peril 
which  may  be  contigent  thereto,  the  law  concedes  a 
change  of  person,  whilst  it  demands  identity  of  service. 
The  object  of  the  legal  claim,  may  be  as  effectually 
secured  by  a  substitute,  as  by  his  principal ;  and  when 
the  ends  of  law  are  fully  accomplished,  justice  is  satis- 
fied, and  of  course  awards  the  meed  of  due  applause. 

The  possibility   of  legal   substitution,   therefore,   im- 
plies in  the  principal,  an  obligation  to  do  or  to  suffer 
18 


206  SUBSTITUTION. 

something ;  and  a  willingness  to  have  this  claim  trans- 
ferred, or  passed  over  to  another  person :  or,  in  other 
words,  a  willingness,  that  another  person  shall  take  his 
place  and  abide  his  responsibilities. 

It  implies  in  the  substitute,  a  moral  right,  that  is,  a 
right  in  the  eye  of  the  moral  law,  to  come  under  the 
obligations  of  the  other.  The  thing  to  be  done  or  suf- 
fered, must,  in  itself,  be  such  a  thing  as  is  right  for  him 
to  do  or  to  suffer.  He  must  have  a  right  of  control 
over  himself  in  reference  to  the  services  required.  He 
can  have  no  right  to  give  away  services  to,  or  for  ano- 
ther, which  were  not  his  own.  Hence,  manifestly,  a 
man  has  no  right  to  offer  himself  as  a  substitute  for  a 
person  condemned  to  death ;  he  has  no  right  to  give  a- 
way  his  life,  for  it  is  not  his  own.  It  belongs  to  God, 
and  none  but  God  who  gave  it,  has  a  right  to  destroy 
it.  A  man  may  forfeit  his  life  to  the  laws  of  God  and 
his  country,  and  thus  throw  it  away  :  but  he  has  no 
right  to  do  so.  The  act  is  criminal.  It  partakes  of 
the  nature  of  suicide,  and  for  it,  as  well  as  for  the  crime 
V;  which  caused  the  forfeiture,  God  will  hold  him  respon- 
sible. 

So,  personal  services,  a  minor  has  no  right  to  give 
away  by  substitution  ;  for  they  are  not  his  own  ;  they 
belong  to  his  parent  or  guardian.  Before  he  can  have 
a  right  to  expend  them  for  the  benefit  of  another,  he 
must  have  the  right  in  himself  to  expend  them  for  him- 
self. A  minor,  therefore,  however  willing,  cannot  of 
himself,  become  a  legal  substitute. 

Another  phase  of  the  same  idea,  is,  that  the  person 
substituted,  must  be  duly  qualified  to  perform  the  servi- 
ces to  which  his  principal  was  bound.  To  engage  to 
perform  what  a  man  is  unable  to  perform,  is  an  immo- 
rality and  a  fraud,  both  upon  the  principal  and  the  law. 

Another  indispensable  to  legal  substitution,  is,  a  wil- 
lingness to  assume  the  responsibilities  of  the  principal. 
It  must  be  voluntary,  in  order  to  be  right.  There  is,  in 
fact,  in  every  case,  a  virtual  covenant,  agreement  or 
contract,  between  the  principal  and  his  substitute — a 
mutual  consent,  creating  a  moral  union  between  them  as 
parties. 


SUBSTITUTION".  207 

But  these  are  not  the  only  requisites  to  substitution. 
It  is  not  sufficient,  that  there  be  a  principal,  under  cer- 
tain obligations,  and  willing1  to  have  them  transferred — 
that  there  be  a  substitute,  having  a  moral  right  to  re- 
ceive the  transfer,  an  ability  and  a  willingness  to  meet 
the  obligations  of  his  principal.  Every  instance  of  le- 
gal substitution,  is  a  covenant  of  three  parties.  The 
law,  also,  has  a  voice  in  the  matter.  It  has  a  specific 
claim  upon  the  individual.  A.  is  bound  to  certain  duties 
— or  to  endure  certain  penal  evils.  In  either  case  the 
law  knows  only  A.  It  can  claim,  of  A  only.  It  has 
nothing  against  B  and  can  claim  nothing  at  his  hand. 
A's  willingness  to  transfer  his  liabilities  to  B ;  and  B's 
willingness  to  receive  them  and  abide  the  consequences, 
lays  the  law  under  no  obligation  to  admit  the  arrange- 
ment. If  I  employ  A  to  do  a  piece  of  work,  1  am  un- 
der no  obligation  to  put  it  into  the  hands  of  B,  C,  or  D, 
or  any  other  whom  A  may  send  as  a  substitute.  I 
know  only  the  party  contracting,  and  the  admission  of 
another  in  his  room,  is  purely  optional  with  me.  I 
may  think  D  and  C  unsuitable  to  the  service,  and  in- 
sist upon  A  fulfiling  his  contract.  I  may  think  B  as 
competent  as  A  to  secure  my  object,  and  may  agree  to 
the  substitution:  but  this  is  manifestly,  anew  item  in  the 
contract.  It  brings  in  another  party.  It  is  now  a  con- 
tract of  three  parties. 

Hence  it  is  obvious,  that  on  the  part  of  the  law,  there 
must  exist  a  moral  right  to  approve  the  substitution. 
If  the  law's  claim  upon  A  is  for  something  over  which 
B  has  no  right  of  control  as  to  himself,  the  law  can- 
not approve  the  transfer.  To  put  B  to  death  for  the 
crime  of  A  would  be  unjust,  even  with  consent  of  both; 
unless  B  had  a  right  to  give  that  consent: — that  is, 
unless  B  had  a  right  to  dispose  of  his  own  life  at  plea- 
sure. But  as  this  is  not  the  case  with  any  mere  crea- 
ture— as  no  mere  creature  has  a  right  over  his  own  life, 
to  destroy  it  at  pleasure,  so,  no  man  can  have  a  right  to 
substitute  himself  for  another  doomed  to  death,  and  the 
law  cannot  consent  to  such  substitution.  It  can  only 
originate  with  that  sovereignty  which  is  above  the  law. 

This  reasoning  will  apply  in  all  cases  of  criminal  a- 


208  SUBSTITUTION. 

ward.  Suppose  A  condemned  to  ten  years  confine- 
ment in  the  penitentiary,  and  suppose  B  willing  and 
able  to  do  the  labour,  and  to  endure  the  hardships  a- 
warded  to  A,  can  such  a  substitution  take  place?  Would 
it  be  morally  risfht  ?  Could  the  law  allow  it  ?  To  these 
interrogatories,  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  and  the 
laws  of  all  civilized  countries  give  but  one  response. 
All  revolt  against  the  punishment  of  the  innocent  in 
room  of  the  guilty.  And  the  reason  is  obvious.  No 
man  has  a  right  to  sell  his  own  freedom.  A  did  wrong 
in  becoming  bound  to  durance  vile  :  it  was  his  crime. 
B's  rights  and  duties  are  reciprocal.  God  made  him 
free,  and  the  possession  of  this  precious  treasure,  is,  it- 
self, evidence  of  an  obligation  to  preserve  it,  and  to  im- 
prove it.  It  is  a  talent,  which  he  has  no  right  either  to 
bury  in  the  earth  or  to  lay  up  in  a  napkin.  He  must 
use  it,  or  be  criminal.  He  has  no  right  to  throw  it 
away,  and  therefore,  substitution  in  such  case,  is  not  al- 
lowed. Every  man  is  under  eternal  obligations  to  pre- 
serve and  to  imnrove  his  natural  and  unalienable  rights, 
and  cannot,  without  criminality,  ever  be  Avilling  to  sur- 
render them.  I  have  no  more  right  to  sacrifice  my  free- 
dom, than  to  cut  off  my  hand  or  my  head.  Each  of 
these  would  be  wrong,  and  a  man  cannot  have  a  right  to 
do  wrong.  Legal  substitution,  therefore,  can  occur 
only  within  the  limits  of  personal  rights.  Just  so  far 
as  I  have,  in  the  eye  of  law,  human  and  divine,  entire 
control  over  my  person  and  conduct,  and  so  far  only, 
can  I  consent  to  be  substituted  in  room  of  another,  to 
sustain  his  legal  responsibilities.  Such  is  the  simple 
doctrine  of  vicarious  substitution.  Our  next  position 
is, 

SECTION  V. 

That  this  doctrine  is  embodied  in  the  doctrine  of 

Atonement. 

1.  The  whole  body  of  God's  redeemed  ones,  are  the 
principal.  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep."  "He 
suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust."     "He  was  wounded 


SUBSTITUTION.  209 

for  our  transgressions."  In  the  condition  of  the  lost, 
whom  He  came  to  save,  we  have  the  two  great  requi- 
sites to  a  principal,  (a)  God's  redeemed  were  bound 
under  his  law  to  the  endurance  of  his  wrath.  This  is 
the  common  lot  of  the  race,  as  we  have  seen  at  due 
length.  All  have  sinned  and  do  come  short  of  the  glory 
of  God.  The  whole  world  has  become  guilty  before 
God,  and  therefore  it  is  appointed  by  a  decree  of  heaven, 
unto  man  once  to  die.  The  wages  of  sin  is  death. 
Guilt  is  the  bond  which  binds  the  sinner  to  the  stake  for 
eternal  burnings.  This  state  of  the  race  makes  it  neces- 
sary to  procure  a  substitute,  as  it  lays  open  the  oppor- 
tunity— it  creates  the  possibility  of  substitution,  (b)  All. 
the  people  of  God  are  (or  will  be)  willing  to  accept  the 
proffered  substitute.  Naturally  of  themselves,  they  are- 
hostile  and  unwilling;  but  supernaturally — through  the 
teachings  of  the  word,  and  the  almighty  workings  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  they  become  willing,  and  do  humble  them- 
selves, and  embrace  the  proffered  boon  of  heaven.  They; 
are  made  to  feel  their  lost  estate,  and  exposure  to  wrath. 
They  are  enabled  in  God's  light,  to  see  light  clearly,  and 
seeing  the  suitableness  of  the  offered  salvation,  they  be- 
come willing  in  the  day  of  God's  power. 

(2)  The  substitute  is  Jesias,  the  Lamb  of  God.     And. 
we  have  in  him  the  three  requisites.     (1)  He  had  a  moral 
right  to  make  the  substitution:  i.  e.  to  put  himself  under 
the  legal    responsibilities  of  Ms   people.     For  He  has 
"life  in  himself" — it  is  his  absolutely,  and  independent- 
ly.    In  John  x.    17,   18.   He   is  very  particular  in  the 
statement  of  this  position.     "  Therefore  doth  my  Father 
love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  might  take 
it  again.     No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down 
of  myself:  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again."     The  power  here,  unquestion- 
ably involves  the  right  to  use  it.     His  life,  which  he 
lays  down  for  his  sheep,  is  his  own,  by  an  underived 
title.     It  belongs  to  him  essentially,  and  He  may  there- 
fore, do  with  it  as  seems  good  in  his  own  sight.     The  hu- 
manity of  our  Lord  is  a  miracle  as  to  its  origin.     It  was 
not  produced  as  other  human  beings  are  produced ;  but 
beyond  the  range  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  our  nature. 
18* 


210  SUBSTITUTION. 

Its  mode  of  existence  is  a  miracle  ;  it  is  not  sustained  by 
a  divine  power  existing  apart  from  itself;  but  it  is,  and 
always  has  been,  in  personal  union  with  the  self-exis- 
tent Jehovah.  As  he  holds  his  life,  as  man,  not  de- 
pendency on  another,  but  in  himself,  he  may  lay  it 
down  at  pleasure.  Where  he  dependent — did  he  hold 
his  life  by  suffrance,  he  could  not  rightfully  give  it  away: 
but  inasmuch  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  and  so 
hath  He  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself,  it  is  at 
his  own  disposal.  He  may  voluntarily  surrender  it,  by 
putting  himself  into  the  legal  relations  of  those  who  are 
under  condemnation,  by  the  judgement  of  the  holy  God. 
There  is  this  clear  difference  between  the  man  Jesus 
and  all  other  men,  that  they  all  are  dependent  for  life 
and  all  its  attributes,  upon  another — even  upon  God  the 
Creator,  and,  of  course,  not  one  of  them  has  a  right  over 
his  own  life  ;  but  Jesus  has  such  a  right  in  and  of  him- 
self. The  importance  of  this  point  is  not  in  proportion 
to  the  time  spent  in  its  illustration  ;  but  its  obvious 
plainness  and  simplicity,  prevents  the  necessity  of  dwel- 
ling longer  on  it. 

2.  Jesus  was  able  to  meet  the  claims  of  law  upon 
those  for  whom  he  became  a  substitute.  He  could  and 
did,  as  we  have  seen,  fulfil  the  entire  law  of  God  by  a 
of  life,  active  holy  submission  to  all  its  commands.  He 
could  and  did  endure  pain  and  anguish  inconceivable. 

(3)  These  he  voluntarily  undertook.  •'  Lo,  I  come, 
in  the  volume  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me — I  delight 
to  do  thy  will,  O  my  God." 

3.  God  the  Father,  supervising  the  claims  of  eternal 
righteousness,  had  (1)  a  demand  on  man  for  perfect  and 
full  obedience  and  entire  satisfaction  for  sin.  These  we 
fully  set  forth,  when  speaking  of  the  effects  of  the  bro- 
ken covenant.  (2)  He  had  a  right  to  transfer  those 
claims  to  his  Son  ;  or  in  other  words,  there  was  no  prin* 
ciple  of  law  violated,  when  the  Father  accepted  the  sub- 
stitution of  his  Son  in  the  room  of  lost  man.  And  (3) 
this  was  actually  done.  The  Father  did  lay  the  burden 
of  our  iniquities  upon  him,  and  was  pleased  to  bruise 
him. 


SUBSTITUTION.  211 


SECTION  VI. 

The  doctrine  of  substitution,  proved  and  illustrated  by 
the  typical  sacrifices. 

Under  the  old  dispensation,  various  offerings  were 
prescribed  by  law,  and  the  bloody  sacrifices  all  repre- 
sented substantially  the  same  thing.  Moses  describes 
the  essence  of  the  whole  in  a  few  words  ;  the  worshipper 
he  says,  (Lev.  i.  3,  4.)  "  shall  offer  it  of  his  own  volun- 
tary will,  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion before  the  Lord.  And  he  shall  put  his  hand  upon 
the  head  of  the  burnt  offering,  and  it  shall  be  accepted 
for  him  to  make  atonement  for  him." 

Here  is  substition — it  is  accepted  for  him — to  make 
atonement  for  him.  In  these  offerings,  there  is,  1.  a 
confession  or  remembrance  of  sin.  The  worshippers 
are  still  reminded  that  they  stand  charged  with  sin. 
2.  There  is  an  acknowledgement  that  life  is  forfeited. 
The  life  of  the  animal  is  destroyed,  and  its  body,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  is  burnt  upon  the  altar — -a  most  significant 
mode  of  confessing,  not  only  the  sins  of  the  worshipper; 
but  also  that  these  sins  deserve  God's  wrath  and  curse 
— in  whose  execution  the  worshipper  sees  the  everlast- 
ing ruin  of  his  soul  ;  and  is  thus  led  to  deep  concern  for 
his  safety.  3.  There  is  expressed  a  hope  of  escaping 
the  death  due  for  sin.  The  worshipper  is  restored  to 
favour.  His  past  sin  is  remembered  no  more  against 
him.  He  is  admitted  to  the  communion  of  the  church — 
to  the  congregation  of  the  Lord.  4.  This  deliverance 
from  ceremonial  guilt  is  through  the  sufferings  of  anoth- 
er.  His  victim  has  bled  ;  and  he  escapes.  The  offering 
is  substituted  in  place  of  the  offerer,  the  one  dies  and 
the  other  lives. 

On  the  great  day  of  atonement,  when  the  High  Priest 
confesses  over  the  scape  goat,  the  sins  of  the  people,  and 
sends  him  away  unto  the  wilderness,  and  when  he  slays 
the  other  goat  to  make  an  atonement  for  the  people,  the 
same  truths  are  set  forth. 

So,  the  paschal   lamb  represents  a  suffering  Saviour, 


212  SUBSTITUTION. 

whose  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  whose  blood  is  drink 
indeed.  And  a  single  inspired  allusion  is  sufficient  to 
satisfy  every  candid  reader  of  the  true  intent  and  mean- 
ing of  this  thing.  Christ,  our  passover,  is  sacrificed  for 
us,  let  us  therefore  go  forth  to  him  who  has  suffered  with- 
out the  gate.  Never  could  it  be  supposed  that  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins  ;  but  those 
sacrifices  were  typical — they  pointed  to  Christ  the  Lamb 
of  God,  who,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself 
a  sacrifice  for  his  people.  As  the  High  Priest  laid  the 
sins  of  the  people  upon  the  victim's  head,  so  God  our 
Father  laid  our  iniquities  upon  his  own  Son.  As  the 
devoted  victim  must  die :  so  the  devoted  Redeemer  must 
die. 

SECTION  VII. 

This  doctrine  alone  can  account  for  the  fact,  that  Je- 
sus suffered,  bled  and  died. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Son  of  God  did  suffer  most 
excruciating  agonies — that  this  was  by  express  ap- 
pointment of  the  Father — that  when  the  Father  was  in- 
treated  to  let  the  bitter  cup  pass,  it  did  not  pass — the 
Saviour  drank  it  in  all  its  bitterness.  This  is  the  fact. 
God  did  bruise  him. 

Now  this  was  either  right  or  wrong.  The  sufferings 
of  Christ  were  inflicted  on  him,  by  God,  either  in  pur- 
suance of  the  claims  of  divine  justice,  or  in  opposition 
to  them.  Now  which?  Was  it  wrong  in  God  to  put 
such  a  cup  into  the  hands  of  Jesus,  and  to  constrain  him 
to  drink  it  ? — to  refuse  to  let  it  pass  from  him,  though 
entreated  by  all  that  is  tender  and  sympathising  in  the 
bleeding  agonies  of  Gethsemane  !  Was  it  wrong  in  God 
to  nail  him  on  the  accursed  tree  !  !  Was  it  wrong  in  God 
to  withdraw  from  his  own  Son,  the  tokens  of  his  love,  and 
to  leave  him  to  all  the  agonies  of  one  forsaken ! !  !  Was 
all  this  wrong  !  !  Nay,  but  shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the 
earth  do  right  ? 

How  then  could  it  be  right,  to  inflict  such  pain  upon 
one  so  holy,  harmless,  undefiled  and  separate  from  sin- 


SUBSTITUTION.  213 

ners  ?  He  that  condemneth  the  righteous,  is  an  abomi- 
nation to  the  Lord ;  how  much  more  he,  who  both  con- 
demns and  executes  the  righteous  ?  How  then  shall  we 
exonerate  the  divine  government  from  the  enormous 
cruelty  and  the  flagrant  injustice  of  imposing  the  most 
awful  sufferings  upon  the  holiest,  and  the  loveliest  and 
most  upright  of  all  the  subjects  of  its  laws  ?  Here  is  a 
problem  in  the  moral  universe — a  spectacle  to  angels  and 
to  men.  Heaven's  first  born,  and  best  beloved — the 
sum  of  all  moral  perfections — the  personified  essence  of 
all  moral  virtues — the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory 
— the  express  image  of  his  person,  writhing,  bleeding, 
dying  by  God's  appointment  !  !  !  Amazing  scene  ! 
Well  might  yonder  sun  hide  his  head!  Well  might 
all  hell  rejoice  !  Well  might  all  heaven  tremble  !  Well 
might  mightiest  Archangels  feel  for  their  crowns,  and 
tremble  for  their  heads!  Well  might  their  trembling  hearts 
exclaim,  It  such  innocence,  such  holiness,  such  righteous- 
ness, can  suffer  such  things;  alas  for  us!  where  the  guaran- 
tee of  our  safety  ?  If  no  mountain  load  of  sin  imputed, 
bows  that  blessed  head;  alas,  for  the  moral  universe!! 
God  has  forgotten  to  be  just  !  Cruelty  and  unrighteous- 
ness are  the  habitation  of  his  throne — wrathful  and  in- 
discriminate destruction  go  before  him  !  !  ! 

Leaving  out  of  view,  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  substi- 
tution, I  ask,  is  it  possible,  for  any  rational  mind  to 
avoid  these  horrible  and  tremendous  conclusions  ?  How 
can  you  solve  the  problem  in  any  other  way  than  this, 
which  charges  God  foolishly  ?  I  therefore,  leave  the 
burning  point  of  this  sword,  in  the  conscience  of  all  who 
deny  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  being  a  substitute  in  room 
of  his  people,  and  bearing  their  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree:  and  turn  to  this  glorious  and  blessed  truth, 
as  containing  a  full  and  thorough  solution  of  the  pro- 
blem before  us. 

Jesus  was  the  substitute  of  his  people— their  Pas- 
chal Lamb.  By  his  own  voluntary  deed,  he  put  him- 
self in  their  legal  position.  He  undertook  for  them,  to 
meet  all  the  claims  of  law.  God  the  Father,  consented 
to  the  substitution;  because  the  Son  had  a  right  over 
his  own  life  and  could  lay  it  down  at  pleasure.     Jesus 


214  SUBSTITUTION. 

having  thus  taken  upon  himself,  the  legal  respon- 
sibility of  his  people,  is  bound  to  do  and  to  suffer  in 
their  place  and  room,  all  that  they  were  bound  to  do 
and  to  suffer.  Their  sins  were  laid  upon  him.  The 
cords  by  which  they  were  bound  to  the  stake,  are  loos- 
ed from  off  them,  and  bound  upon  him.  The  law  lays 
hold  upon  Him.  Justice  commands,  "  Smite  the 
Shepherd  and  the  Sheep  shall  be  scattered."  He  is 
wounded  for  our  transgressions — he  is  bruised  for  our 
iniquities — the  chastisement  of  our  peace  is  upon  him — 
and  by  his  stripes  we  are  healed,  for  the  Lord  laid  on 
him,  the  iniquities  of  us  all ;  and  therefore  was  He 
pleased  to  bruise  him. 

Thus,  the  doctrine  of  substitution  solves  the  moral 
problem:  and  presents  us  at  once,  with  the  most  illus- 
trious exhibition  of  the  immaculate  purity  of  divine 
justice  and  of  its  eternal  inflexibility.  To  the  cross  of 
Calvary  the  universe  is  triumphantly  pointed,  as  illus- 
trating in  the  highest  possible  degree,  the  glory  of  the 
divine  justice.  On  that  awful  mount  she  stands.  The 
scales  of  eternal  equity  in  one  hand,  and  the  flaming 
sword  of  immutable  righteousness  in  the  other.  A 
bleeding,  weeping  Christ  before  her.  The  groans  and 
tears  and  bloody  sweat  of  Gethsemane,  pleading  with 
ten  thousand  tongues,  "let  this  cup  pass!"  Heaven 
and  all  its  hosts  of  angels,  aghast  and  in  wondring  a- 
mazement.  Hell,  deluded  hell,  in  malignant  joy, 
watching  the  grand  result.  Justice — stern,  and  un- 
yielding, utters  her  fiat — Smite  the  Shepherd. 

Oh,  what  a  groan  was  there  !  "  It  is  finished."  The 
deed  is  done.  Justice  is  satisfied.  The  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  universe  is  established  upon  her  eternal 
basis.  Hell  is  disappointed.  The  curse  is  merged  in 
Calvary's  blood  and  forever  lost.  The  barrier  is  remov- 
ed, mercy,  with  her  bow  of  promise,  ushers  forth — a 
ruined  world  is  saved. 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  SUBSTITUTION.  215 

SECTION  VIII. 
The  conseqences  of  legal  substitution. 

1.  To  the  substitute.  For  all  the  purposes,  for 
which  he  is  a  substitute,  he  lies  under  the  same  legal 
obligations,  under  which  his  principal  lay.  If  his  prin- 
cipal was  bound  to  active,  obedience  to  the  law,  so  is 
he.  If  the  principal  was  held  under  the  curse,  or  penal 
sanction  of  the  law,  so  is  He.  He  must  endure  it  all. 
Hence  the  impossibility,  of  this  cup  passing  away,  be- 
cause of  the  immutability  of  divine  justice. 

If  the  principal  should  himself  satisfy  all  claims  of 
law  against  himself,  he  must  be  released  from  punish- 
ment, and  made  happy  forever,  according  to  the  terms 
of  the  covenant,  wherein  God  promised  life  to  man. 
So  Christ,  the  sinner's  substitute,  surety,  and  friend, 
having  finished  the  whole  work  given  him,  having  for 
his  people,  and  in  their  responsibilities,  fulfilled  all 
law,  must  rise  from  the  dead  and  live  forever.  Hence, 
"  he  could  not  be  holden  of  death."  It  is  a  moral  im- 
possibility. Justice — the  very  same  stern  justice  which 
demanded  of  Him,  obedience  and  death,  now  demands 
his  release  from  that  death.  Her  claim  is  satisfied  and 
she  has  no  more  disposition  than  power  to  retain  her 
captive  in  chains.  The  same  divine  fiat  which  said, 
"  Smite  the  Shepherd,"  now  proclaims,  "  Raise  him 
to  everlasting  glory,  and  "  let  all  the  angels  of  God  wor- 
ship Him".  Unto  him  let  every  knee  bow,  and  every 
tongue  confess.  He  has  glorified  me  above  all  the  crea- 
tures of  God,  and  let  all  the  creatures  of  God — through 
everlasting  ages,  exhalt  his  glory  in  the  highest. 

From  the  actual  substitution  of  Christ — his  actual 
meeting  of  all  claims  against  his  people  and  him,  re- 
sults his  universal  dominion.  "All  power  is  given  unto 
me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  This  dominion  is  found- 
ed in  right.  Because  he  hath  established  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  moral  government,  therefore  is  its  actual  ad- 
ministration over  the  universe,  entrusted  to  his  hands. 
Because  he  humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  until 


216  CONSEQUENCES  OF  SUBSTITUTION. 

death,  therefore  hath  God  highly  exalted  him,  and  given 
him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name,  that  at  the  name 
of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow  and  every  tongue  con- 
fess. 

From  this  substitution,  results  the  Redeemer's  right 
in  his  people,  and  his  claim  to  their  release  from  all  the 
consequences  of  sin.  He  has  met  those  consequences, 
and  has  a  claim  to  their  exemption.  He  has  paid  the 
price  of  their  redemption,  and  is  entitled  to  their  deli- 
verance. To  retain  them  in  bondage,  after  He  demands 
their  release,  were  the  height  of  injustice.  Such  power, 
the  law  has  not.  It  must  recognize  the  claims  of  our 
blessed  substitute,  the  moment  he  puts  them  in. 

Hence  results,  the  mission  of  the  spirit  at  the  inter- 
cession of  the  Son.  "Him  the  Father  heareth  always." 
This  is  not  the  place  to  dwell  upon  the  intercession  of 
Christ,  nor  the  mission  of  his  Spirit.  I  only  remark 
the  connexion  in  law  and  in  right,  between  these  things. 
These  follow  as  a  matter  of  moral  necessity,  as  peremp- 
tory and  inevitable,  in  a  legal  or  moral  point  of  view, 
as  any  consequence  in  the  natural  world,  follows  its 
natural  antecedent.  It  is  not  more  a  matter  of  necessi- 
ty, that  a  ponderous  body  projected  into  the  air,  must 
descend  again  to  the  earth,  than  that  the  deliverance  of 
his  people  from  the  bondage  of  the  law,  and  of  sin,  and 
of  death,  should  followChrist's  legal  substitution  in  their 
room,  and  his  consequent  obedience  and  death  for 
them. 

Equally  clear  is  Christ's  right  to  his  people's  rescue 
from  the  grave,  and  their  eternal  blessedness  in  heaven. 
Their  reception  to  everlasting  glory  and  security  there- 
in, by  an  irreversible  decision  of  eternal  judgment,  is 
one — and  indeed  the  main  right,  title  and  claim  ?of  Je- 
sus, founded  on  the  fulness  of  his  own  satisfaction  to 
all  the  claims  of  all  law,  human  and  divine,  ceremonial 
and  moral. 

2.  To  the  principal^  The  results  of  substitution  are 
correspondently  important. 

He  is  released  from  those  demands  of  law,  for  which 
his  substitute  has  already  satisfied  by  his  death.  This 
grows  out  of  the  very  nature  of  moral  government — the 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  SUBSTITUTION.  217 

nature  of  justice.  That  a  man  should  be  held  liable  to 
suffer,  after  the  law  has  said,  in  reference  to  its  own 
claim  against  him,  it  is  finished,  is  a  contradiction,  in 
terms.  It  is  affirming  a  thing  to  be,  and  not  to  be,  at 
the  same  time.  Guilt,  or  liableness  to  punishment,  lies 
upon  him,  after  it  has  been  taken  off  him  and  put  upon 
the  head  of  his  substituted  Surety,  and  he  has  taken  it 
away  !  The  Lamb  of  God  has  taken  away  the  sins  of 
the  world,  and  yet  they  lie  upon  it  !  The  sinner  is  re- 
deemed, and  yet  he  is  in  bondage  !  !  The  curse  has  been 
laid  upon  the  head  of  his  Surety;  and  yet  it  is  laid  upon 
his  head  !  The  one  has  suffered  all  that  justice  demand- 
ed or  could  demand,  and  yet  the  other  is  still  bound  to 
suffer  !  !  That  has  drunk  the  bitter  cup  to  the  very 
dregs;  and  yet  this  must  drink  it  all  !  ! 

Clearly  then,  it  is  a  moral  impossibility,  laid  in  the 
very  nature  of  God's  eternal  righteousness,  that  the 
sheep  of  Christ's  flock,  should  not  be. with  him,  in  due 
time,  to  behold  his  glory  and  to  enjoy  him  forever. 

3.  In  reference  to  God  the  Father,  as  the  executor 
of  justice — atonement,  in  the  general  sense  of  the 
English  term — reconciliation  results.  The  parties  of- 
fended, and  at  variance,  viz  :  sinful  man  and  the  sin- 
hating  God,  are  brought  together.  The  cause  of  God's 
displeasure  towards  man — the  only  possible  cause,  is 
sin.  If  then,  the  cause  be  removed,  the  effects  must 
pass  off.  God  is  angry  with  the  wicked  on  account  of 
their  wickedness.  Their  sins  only  render  them  odious 
in  his  sight.  But  their  sins  are  removed,  taken  away, 
and  forever  washed  out  by  the  blood  of  Christ ;  conse- 
quently, their  Father's  displeasure  must  cease,  and  he 
admit  them  to  his  favour,  which  is  life,  and  to  the  parti- 
cipation of  his  loving  kindness,  which  is  better  than  life. 
We  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  son. 

But  here,  it  is  of  no  small  importance  to  distinguish, 
between  offended  God  and  offending  man,  in  reference 
to  this  reconciliation.  God's  indignation  burns  eternally 
against  all  sin.  His  justice  requires  its  punishment. 
His  holiness  requires,  with  equal  rigidness,  holiness  in 
man,  and  in  case  of  its  absence,  he  cannot  look  with 
complacency  upon  him.  Now  the  eye  of  God  is  turned 
19 


218  CONSEQUENCES  OF  SUBSTITUTION. 

upon  the  all  perfect  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ's 
death,  and  He  is  pleased  :  it  is  turned  upon  the  infinite- 
ly perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  in  his  obeying  the 
law,  and  He  is  satisfied,  and  delights  therein.  God  is 
reconciled — He  is  no  longer  angry  with  the  sinner ; 
for  he  is  no  longer  a  sinner  in  the  eye  of  God,  and  of 
his  justice. 

But  as  to  the  man, — his  actual  reconciliation — the  re- 
moval of  all  feeling  of  enmity  to  God,  and  the  substitu- 
tion in  their  place,  of  all  holy  affections — of  supreme  and 
ardent  love  to  God — this  is  quite  a  different  thing.  It 
follows  as  an  inevitable,  but  not  immediate  consequence 
of  substitution  and  satisfaction.  It  is  inevitable,  as  we 
have  seen,  because  of  the  very  nature  of  moral  law  and 
government,  from  Christ's  satisfaction  by  his  substitu- 
tion. But  it  follows  mediately,  viz:  through  the  agency 
of  the  divine  Spirit,  which  agency  operates  in  the  con- 
version and  sanctification  of  the  soul.  This  therefore, 
belongs  not  to  the  question  of  legal  relations  at  all  ;  but 
will  come  in  properly,  when  our  attention  shall  be 
claimed  by  the  moral  affections,  accompanying  the 
change  of  legal  relations.  Then  we  shall  find,  that  re- 
conciliation, in  the  sense  of  propitiating  us  to  God — 
i.  e.  rendering  us  well  disposed,  friendly,  and  imbued 
with  a  spirit  of  love  to  him — flows  from  renovation  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  in  view  of  Christ's  propitiato- 
ry sacrifice. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

This  is  a  very  vexed  question,  and  were  it  one  mere- 
ly of  doubtful  disputation,  and  not  vital  in  its  impor- 
tance, on  the  great  subject  of  Justification,  we  might 
avoid  the  discussion  of  it,  as  entirely  controversial. 
But,  inasmuch,  as  the  extent  of  the  atonement  depends 
upon  its  nature,  the  enquiry  will,  I  trust,  be  at  once 
interesting  and  profitable.  In  the  discussion,  I  shall 
pursue  the  didactic  form  first ;  and  shew  the  true  doc- 
trine, as  a  necessary  result  of  the  preceding  views  :  and 
then  take  up  the  erroneous  sentiments  and  evince  their 
true  character  and  tendencies. 

SECTION  I. 

Let  us  recall  a  few  leading  principles,  heretofore  set- 
tled. 

1.  In  the  government  of  a  holy  God,  an  innocent  be- 
ing cannot  suffer.  To  suppose  that  God  would  lay  the 
punishment  of  sin — or  treat  a  moral  being,  entirely  free 
from  sin,  as  a  sinner,  by  delivering  him  up  to  suffer,  is 
to  charge  God  foolishly. 

2.  The  sufferings  of  Jesus  were  by  appointment  of 
God,  therefore,    as  he  had  no  sin  of  his  own, 

3.  He  must  have  suffered  for  the  sins  of  some  other 
person,  or  persons.     I  say  person,  because, 

4.  We  have  seen,  that  the  idea  of  a  person  represent- 
ing or  acting  morally  for  a  nature,  for  a  mere  abstrac- 
tion that  never  existed,  and  never  could  exist,  is  a  spe- 
culation too  foolish  to  claim  serious  attention. 

5.  Jesus,  in  acting  and  suffering  for  persons,  stood  in 
their  moral  relations — he  occupied  their  place — he  bore 
their  legal  responsibilities.     For, 

6.  There  is  no  other  reasonable  solution  of  that  stu- 
pendous moral  phenomenon,   presented  on  the  cross  of 


220  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Calvary.  If  Jesus  did  not  legally  bear  the  sins  of  some 
others  than  himself,  then  his  sufferings,  by  appointment 
of  God,  exhibit  the  monster  crime  of  the  universe,  and 
God  is  its  author.     Hence  it  is  evident, 

7.  That  Jesus  did  suffer  for  sin.  But  sin  is  a  perso- 
nal matter  ;  and  the  sin  that  caused  his  death,  must  have 
been  the  sin  of  some  human  person  or  persons. 

8.  The  person  or  persons  whose  sins  lay  on  Jesus, 
and  caused  his  death,  are  his  principals  ;  that  is,  they 
are  the  persons  for  whom  he  acted  and  suffered — whose 
sin  "he  put  away  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."     Hence, 

9.  They  whose  sins  "  he  bore  in  his  own  body  on 
the  tree,"  whose  sins  he  suffered  for — (because  this  is 
what  is  meant  by  his  bearing  them) — cannot,  without  the 
most  palpable  violation  of  all  right,  and  law  and  justice, 
be  themselves  constrained  to  suffer  for  the  same  sins. 
"Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?"  There- 
fore, 

10.  The  atonement — the  satisfaction  rendered  to  di- 
vine justice,  is  as  extensive  so,  as  the  sheep  of  Christ's 
flock,  and  no  more — the  atonement  is  as  long  and 
as  broad  as  the  salvation  of  God.  Or  in  other  words, 
they  whose  sins  are  washed  out  in  the  blood  of  Calva- 
ry, must  be  saved,  and  none  others  con  be.  "  There  is 
none  other  name  under  heaven,  given  among  men, 
whereby  we  must  be  saved."  In  other  words,  They, 
and  all  they  for  whom  Christ  died — for  whom  he  paid 
the  ransom,  or  price  of  redemption,  will  be  saved,  and 
none  others.  To  maintain  any  other  doctrine,  is  to  a- 
bandon  the  atonement  altogether. 

To  this  agrees  the  language  of  the  Bible.  "Christ 
loved  the  Church  and  gave  himself/or  it"  "  He  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions — bruised  for  our  iniqui- 
ties, the  chastisement  of  our  peace,  was  laid  upon  him, 
and  by  his  stripes  we  are  healed."  "  I  lay  down  my 
life  for  the  sheep."  "My  sheep  hear  my  voice  and 
they  follow  me,  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life,  and 
they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them 
out  of  my  hands." 


PROOF  FROM  REDEMPTION.  221 

SECTION  II. 

Proof  from  Sacrifices. 

To  this  agrees  the  doctrine  of  sacrifices.  The  victim 
is  offered  up  for  the  worshipper,  "  to  make  atonement 
for  him."  The  sacrificial  and  scape  goats,  on  the  great 
day  of  atonement,  bear  the  sins  of  the  church,  or  con- 
gregation of  the  Lord.  We  shall  search  in  vain  in  the 
sacred  volume,  for  a  sacrifice  that  was  offered  indefi- 
nitely, for  no  person,  or  any  at  all,  or  any  one  indis- 
criminately. And  the  reason  is  plain.  There  is  no 
such  sacrifice:  and  in  the  very  nature  of  the  thing  there 
can  be  none  such.  Because  there  can  be  no  indefinite 
sin — no  sin  committed  by  persons  indefinitely.  Sin  is 
always  a  personal  matter,  and  until  some  man  shall 
point  out  indefinite  sin,  it  will  be  vain  and  foolish,  to 
talk  of  indefinite  atonement  for  sin. 

SECTION  III. 

Proof  from  the  general  opinions  of  Men. 

But  this  principle  is  found  also,  in  the  common  sense 
of  mankind,  as  it  is  emdodied  in  their  legal  enactments 
and  their  commercial  regulations.  Every  where,  their 
responsibilities  are  personal  and  special :  never  indefi- 
nite. To  talk  of  an  indefinite  satisfaction  for  an  offence 
against  the  laws  of  the  land,  or  the  indefinite  payment 
of  a  debt,  or  the  indefinite  obligation  for  a  debt,  is  to 
utter  incomprehensible  and  indefinite  folly. 

SECTION  IV. 

Proof  from  the  idea  of  Redeeming. 

The  same  is  evinced  by  all  the  language  and  image- 
ry   which   represent    this    doctrine    as    a  j  redemption. 
Here  Christ  is  the  Redeemer — the  one  who  purchases 
back  the  lost  property  of  God,  viz  :  his  people,  who 
19* 


222  PROOF  FROM  REDEMPTION. 

are  carried  away  captive  by  sin  and  Satan.  They  are 
his  redeemed  ones.  The  price  which  he  pays  for 
them, — the  ransom,  is  that  atonement  which,  by  his 
death  he  renders  to  the  law,  which  had  sold  them  into 
captivity. 

Duly  to  appreciate  the  force  of  these  expressions,  it 
is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind,  that  human  language  is 
greatly  influenced  and  modeled  by  human  customs. 
Many  habits  of  society  it  is  necessary  to  understand, 
as  a  means  of  arriving  at  the  true  meaning  of  its  lan- 
guage. Among  the  ancient  customs  of  this  nature,  is 
that  of  making  slaves  of  the  prisoners  of  war  :  and  the 
consequent  custom  of  recovering  these  again  to  free- 
dom, by  purchase.  Very  frequently,  wealthy  friends 
interpose  in  behalf  of  unfortunate  prisoners.  In  this 
case,  the  price  demanded  for  their  release,  is  not  in  pro- 
portion to  their  value.  For  the  sons  of  the  wealthy 
were  likely  to  be  less  worth,  as  slaves,  than  the  sons 
of  the  poor.  But  the  price  of  redemption,'or  the  ransom 
was,  designed  to  be  proportioned  to  the  wealth  and  influ- 
ence of  the  friends  at  home.  The  will  of  the  master 
fixes  its  amount.  And  the  payment  of  the  ransom  is 
part  of  the  work  or  process  of  redemption.  It  is,  how- 
ever, only  a  part  of  it.  The  mere  delivering  of  a  sum 
of  money  into  the  hands  of  a  man,  unaccompanied  by  a 
declaration  of  the  intention,  is  not  a  purchase.  It  may 
perhaps,  be  a  deposit,  but  it  does  not  necessarily  imply 
a  contract.  It  may  be  for  safe-keeping.  It  may  be  in 
payment  of  a  debt.  It  may  be  a  donation.  The  trans- 
action has  no  moral  or  le<ral  character,  unless  the  pur- 
pose be  declared,  and  unless  it  be  agreed  to  by  the  re- 
ceiver. Then,  and  then  only,  can  it  be  considered  as  a 
ransom,  when  the  buyer  and  the  seller  of  the  captive, 
both  view  it  as  such,  and  are  both  agreed,  the  one  to 
give,  and  the  other  to  receive  it.  Thus  the  redeeming 
of  a  captive  is,  substantially  a  covenant  between  two 
parties  for  the  benefit  of  a  third;  and  when  the  terms 
are  complied  with  by  the  redeemer,  he  has  a  claim  of 
right  to  the  release  of  the  third  party:  the  full  vindica- 
tion of  which  claim,  completes  the  operation,  called  re* 
demption. 


PROOF  FROM  REDEMPTION.  223 

Such  were  the  customs  of  the  world  which  gave  rise 
to  that  language  of  the  Bible,  that  sets  forth  the  work  of 
salvation,  as  a  redemption.  Thus,  Christ  redeemed  his 
people  from  the  curse  of  the  law.  He  gave  himself  a 
ransom  for  all  of  them.  Hence,  they  are  bought  with  a 
price,  and  are  not  their  own  ;  nor  do  they  belong  to  the 
world  or  the  devil;  they  are  Christ's. 

Now,  all  such  language  is  calculated  to  deceive  us, 
unless  it  be  true,  that  Jesus  has  certain  friends  and 
brethren,  who  by  fraud  and  deception,  force  and  vio- 
lence— have  been  carried  away  captives,  and  sold  under 
sin :  and  whom  it  is  his  purpose  to  recover  to  their 
original  state  of  holiness,  happiness,  and  freedom.  But 
on  this  supposition,  all  is  plain,  and  obvious,  and  force- 
ful. Let  it  be  conceded,  that  an  immense  multitude  of 
persons  are  given  to  him  by  the  Father ;  and  that  he  has 
undertaken  to  bring  them  all  to  glory  ;  and  this  language 
about  redemption  has  a  beauty  and  a  force,  altogether 
worthy  of  the  glorious  subject.  Of  this  multitude,  Je- 
sus is  the  Redeemer.  This  redeeming,  of  course  in- 
cludes the  payment  of  the  ransom  and  the  release  of  the 
ransomed. 

1.  The  payment  of  the  ransom  or  price  of  redemption: 
which  is  death.  Math  xx.  28,  "the  son  of  man  came  not 
to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister  and  to  give  his  life 
a  ransom  ('kvtpov — a  price  of  redemption)  for  many." 
Psalm,  xlix.  7,  "none  of  them  can  by  any  means  re- 
deem his  brother,  nor  give  to  God  a  ransom  for  him.' 
Here  the  ability  to  redeem,  that  is,  to  buy  back  to  life, 
his  brother,  is  denied ;  yea  even  the  ability  to  pay  the 
price.  A  man  might  be  able  to  pay  the  ransom  required 
to  restore  his  brother  to  freedom ;  and  at  the  same  time, 
be  unable  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  his  purchase.  But 
neither  of  these  is  the  case.  No  man  is  able  to  pay  to 
God  the  ransom  ;  much  less,  is  any  able  to  release  the 
soul  from  death.  Jesus  Christ  says  "  I  will  ransom  them 
from  the  power  of  the  grave  ;  I  will  redeem  them  from 
death  :  O  death,  I  will  be  thy  plagues;  O  grave,  I  will  be 
thy  destruction."  Hos.  xiii.  14;  and  again,  "for  the  Lord 
hath  ransomed  Jacob  and  redeemed  Israel."  Jer.  xxxi. 
11.     Here  again,  is  the  distinction  marked  between  ran* 


224  PROOF  FROM  REDEMPTION. 

soming  and  redeeming — between  the  payment  of  the 
price  and  the  deliverance  of  the  persons  for  whom  it  is 
paid. 

2.  The  restoration  to  their  former  state  of  freedom 
and    happiness,  is  the  main  part  of  redemption  :    it  in- 
cludes the  other;  for  when  the   price  is  paid,  and   there 
is  power  to  vindicate  the  rights  it  creates,  this  follows  of 
course.     The  other  is  presupposed;  so  that,  in  a  just 
administration,  you  can  infer,  from  the  actual  release  of 
the  sinner  from    the  consequences  of  sin  viz  :   death, 
that  death  has  been  suffered  for  him — the  price  has  been 
paid.     Accordingly,  it  is  affirmed,  Gal.  in.  13.   "Christ 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made 
a  curse  for  us  :  for  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every  one  that 
hangeth  on  a  tree."     And  Peter  iv.  18,  says,  "ye  were 
not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  such  as  silver  and 
gold,  from  your  vain  conversation,  received  by  tradition 
from  your  fathers;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ." 
And  Titus,  n.  14.   Christ  "  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he 
might  redeem,  us  from  all  iniquity."     The    actual  re- 
lease is  a  very  important — it  is  in  reality  the  all  import- 
ant item  in  the  work  of  redemption.     Without  it,  there 
is  no  redemption  at  all :  without  it,  what  is  the  payment 
of  the  ransom,  but  an  exhibition  of  folly  or  weakness,  or 
both  ?    Without  it,   no  song  of  gratitude  can  ever  burst 
from  living  lips.      Who  will  ever  thank  and  praise  a  Re- 
deemer that  left  him  in  bondage  ?   If  they  had  only  had 
the  price  paid  for  them — if  they  had  been  left,  notwith- 
standing, in  sin  and  misery,  could  ever  the  elect  of  God 
have  struck  the  lofty  notes  of  that  "new  song,  saying, 
Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and  to  open  the  seals 
thereof;  for  thou  was  slain  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God 
by  thy  blood  ?"  Rev.  v.   9. — thou  hast  purchased — paid 
a  price  for  us  (wyopasas.)     Surely,  this  song  belongs  only 
to  those   who  are  paid  for,  and  restored  to  everlasting 
joys*     Hence,  Paul  says,  Heb.  ix.  12.   Christ  hath  "ob- 
tained eternal  redemption  for  us:"  and  this  is  the  re- 
demption, (%vtpieoLv,)  the  releasing  which  Luke  says  the 
faithful  in  Israel  looked  for.  (n.  38.)     The  same  origi- 
nal word  is  used   to  signify  the  releasing  of  the  perse- 
cuted saints.  Heb.  xi.  35.     "  others    were  tortured  not 


PROOF  FROM  REDEMPTION.  225 

accepting  deliverance''' — redemption — release  from  their 
affliction,  i.  e.  not  accepting  it  on  the  terms  offered  by 
their  persecutors  ;  viz :  upon  condition  they  renounce 
their  religion.  Hence,  again,  I  infer,  the  leading  and 
principal  idea  in  redemption  is,  the  restoration  of  the 
redeemed  to  their  former  state,  and  the  secondary  idea, 
as  to  importance,  but  primary  as  to  order  of  time,  is  the 
purchase  or  payment  of  the  ransom. 

This,  Jesus  effected,  when  he  died  on  the  cross,  and 
said  "it  is  finished  ;"  the  vindication  of  his  rights  thence 
accruing,  he  effects  by  the  power  of  his  spirit  in  the  en- 
tire work  of  sanctification.  Our  present  concern  is  to 
shew,  that  the  purchase  and  the  release  are  co-extensive. 
Christ  paid  the  ransom  for  all  who  shall  ever  be  by  him 
brought  to  glory — for  all  who  shall  ever  "sing  the 
new  song."  Not  one  of  that  immense  throng  shall  be 
guilty  of  affirming  an  untruth,  when  he  shall  say  to  the 
Redeemer — "thou  was  slain,  and  has  redeemed  us  to  God 
by  thy  blood."  But  He  redeemed  no  more.  Not  one 
of  that  other  and  doleful  multitude  who  shall  go  away, 
shall  be  allowed  to  strike  up,  as  he  starts  on  his  down- 
ward course  into  the  fires  of  an  endless  hell,  the  note, 
"  thou  wast  slain  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy 
blood."  Who,  of  all  the  lost  spirits  of  hell,  will  ven- 
ture to  blacken  his  own  guilt  and  sink  himself  deeper  in 
the  abyss  of  woe,  by  uttering  such  a  falsehood  and 
disturbing  the  chorus  of  perdition  ?  What  foul-mouthed 
fiend  will  dare  to  assault  heaven,  and  insult  the  Judge, 
who  has  just  pronounced  his  irrevocable  doom,  by  thus 
charging  the  Son  of  God  with  offering  a  vain  oblation — 
paying  a  price  for  him  which  did  not  secure  him  ?  What 
case  hardened  demon  will  thus  flout  the  efficacy  of 
atoning  blood  ?  Dwells  there  in  all  hell  such  effrontery 
as  to  affirm,  Jesus  "gave  himself  for  me  !" — "he  died 
for  my  sins  !" — he  paid  the  ransom  for  me! — he  pur- 
chased me  ! — he  took  away  my  sins  ! — he  died  as  much 
for  me  as  for  those  who  yonder  go  into  life  eternal !  ! 
Ah  !  No.  This  ignorance,  presumption  and  blasphemous 
arrogance,  is  a  sin  of  earth  only.  Neither  heaven  nor  hell, 
can  thus  trifle  with  atoning  blood.  Neither  Angel  nor 
devil,   neither  sinner  lost   or  saved,  will  be  found  thus 


226  PROOF  FROM  REDEMPTION. 

contemptibly  to  think  or  speak  of  the  groans  of  Geth- 
semane,  and  the  sorrows  of  Calvary.  Of  such  folly 
earth  only  is  the  abode.  Here  only,  is  the  satisfaction 
of  the  Son  of  God,  so  lightly  esteemed,  as  to  be  thought 
to  secure  the  salvation  of  no  one.  Here  only,  is  Jesus 
Christ  accounted  guilty,  either  of  folly,  or  weakness,  or 
both  : — of  folly  in  paying  a  price  for  those  he  never  ex- 
pected to  secure  and  bring  to  heaven  ;  or,  if  he  did  ex- 
pect and  design  to  save  them,  of  weakness  in  not  ac- 
complishing his  purpose  and  fulfilling  his  expectations  ; 
or  of  both  in  the  nonperformance  of  the  principal  thing 
in  redemption,  viz :  the  actual  salvation  of  the  re- 
deemed ! 

But  now,  if  your  heart  and  your  head  equally  revolt 
at  the  absurdity  and  impiety  of  an  atonement  that  of  it- 
self secures  the  salvation  of  no  one — if  you  shrink  from 
tabling  such  a  charge,  against  the  wisdom  and  goodness 
of  Christ,  as  that  of  paying  a  ransom,  but  not  vindicating 
the  rights  of  his  purchase  ;  of  redeeming  multitudes  who 
shall  burn  for3ver  in  the  fires  of  death  ;  of  atoning  for 
multitudes  who  are  never  reconciled  to  God  !  ! — if  these 
things  are  too  monstrous;  then  you  are  ready  to  receive 
the  plain  scripture  doctrine  of  Christ's  true  and  proper 
legal  substitution  in  the  room  of  his  people — his  conse- 
quent representation  of  them — his  acting  for  them,  and  for 
none  others,  in  his  obedience — his  suffering  for  his  sheep 
— not  for  the  goats,  and  thus  making  legal  restitution  for 
their  sins  ;  so  as  to  bind  down  the  faithfulness  of  God 
the  Father,  to  their  release  from  sin  and  their  security 
forever  in  the  joys  of  life.  In  other  words,  that  the 
obedience  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God,  are  vicarious — 
they  are  for  his  own  people.  The  atonement,  by  the 
very  necessity  and  essence  of  its  own  nature,  is  precise 
and  definite.     "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep." 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  as  you  have  it  set 
forth  in  the  Bible — a  doctrine  whose  inimitable  simpli- 
city bespeaks  its  heavenly  origin,  almost  equally  with 
its  unspeakable  grandeur — a  doctrine  which  glorifies  the 
justice  of  God,  whilst  it  reveals  his  mercy — a  doctrine 
which  has  its  foundation  in  the  eternal  and  unchanging 
principles  of  right  and  law,  and  sets  not  "  at  odds  heav- 


universalist's  objection.  227 

en's  jarring  attributes,"  brings  all  the  perfections  of  God 
to  harmonize  in  the  salvation  of  man  : — a  doctrine,  which 
presents  to  the  bleeding  heart,  a  full  and  gracious  guar- 
antee that  it  "  shall  never  perish,"  and  thus  forms  an 
immoveable  foundation  for  the  edifice  of  its  hopes,  and 
the  habitation  of  its  joys  as  a  doctrine  : — that  points  out, 
with  a  sunbeam,  the  manner  in  which  "  God  can  be  just 
and  thejustifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus." 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST   A    LIMITED    AND     REAL  ATONEMENT. 

Against  this  doctrine,  so  abundant  in  blessings  to  good 
men,  and  glory  to  the  good  and  upright  God— who  are 
they  that  have  any  thing  to  object? 

SECTION  I. 

The  Universalis? s  Objection. 

They  maintain,  that  Christ  will  ultimately  bring  to 
heaven  all  the  human  race — yea,  some  insist,  that  all 
moral  creatures,  fallen  angels,  as  well  as  men,  will  be 
saved.  It  is  unworthy  of  God  to  stop  half-way.  It  is 
inconsistent  with  his  universal  benevolence,  to  thrust  out 
into  eternal  death  any  creature  of  his  hand.  The  doc- 
trine of  limited  salvation  makes  God  partial,  and  thus 
stains  the  glory  of  the  divine  attributes,  by  exhibiting 
God  as  a  cruel  being,  who  makes  his  creatures  unhappy. 
On  the  other  hand,  universal  salvation  is  broad  and  lib- 
eral, worthy  of  the  benevolent  God,  and  attracting  by 
its  liberality  the  hearts  of  all  creatures  to  himself. 

On  this  subject  we  must  be  very  brief,  and  that  not 
because  of  its  difficulty ;   but  because  of  its   plainness 


228  tjniversalist's  objection. 

and  simplicity,  and  comparative  insignificance.     I  re- 
mark, 

1.  The  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  is  very  palata- 
ble to  the  carnal  mind — the  unrenewed  heart.  All  un- 
converted men  icould  believe  it,  if  they  were  able. 
Whenever  it  is  presented  to  the  unsanctified  heart,  there 
springs  up  a  spontaneous  desire,  that  it  might  be  true  ;  and 
this  desire  resists  steadfastly  the  evidence  of  its  falsehood. 
Wicked  men,  all  over  the  world,  would  fondly  believe 
it;  and  do  actually  believe  it,  so  far  as  they  can.  Now. 
from  this  fact,  is  manifest  the  opposition  of  the  doctrine 
to  the  pure  teachings  of  the  Bible.  If  universalism 
were  the  gospel  of  Christ,  that  gospel  would  have  no 
cross  in  it.  If  the  Bible  taught  universal  salvation,  it 
would  be  universally,  and  at  once  embraced.  Its  agree- 
ableness  to  the  feelings  of  the  carnal  mind,  would  secure 
it  a  prompt  reception  in  every  bosom.  The  popularity 
of  universalism  with  the  thoughtless  and  wicked,  is  proof 
irresistable,  that  it  is  not  the  system  taught  in  the  Bible. 

2.  The  word  of  God  is  the  onlv  infallible  rule  of  di- 
rection  in  this  question :  and  its  testimonies  are  very  ex- 
plicit— a  few  only  of  them  we  can  present.  Ps.  ix.  17. 
44  The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell  and  all  the  nations 
that  forget  God."  Prov.  xiv.  32.  "The  wicked  is 
driven  away  in  his  wickedness,  but  the  righteous  hath 
hope  in  his  death."  Prov.  xi.  21.  "Though  hand 
join  in  hand,   the    wicked  shall   not  be   unpunished." 

This  punishment  is  ^represented  in  scripture,  by  the 
strongest  language  and  imagery  possible  :  both  in  regard 
to  its  intensity  and  duration. 

(1)  Its  intensity — "  who  among  us  shall  dwell  with 
devouring  fire!"  "  Tophet  is  ordained  of  old,  for  the 
king  it  is  prepared;  he  hath  made  it  deep  and  large,  the 
pile  thereof  is  fire  and  much  wood  :  and  the  breath  of  the 
Lord" — the  Spirit  Jehovah — "like  a  stream  of  brimstone, 
doth  kindle  it."  (Isa.  xxx.  33.)  And  the  fearful  de- 
struction of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  are  constantly,  referred 
to  as  expressive  of  the  terrible  punishment  of  the  wick- 
ed. And  in  Math.  xxv.  46,  the  Saviour  says  "  these 
shall  go  away  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels" — "  their  worm  dieth  not  and  their  fire 


universalist's  objection.  229 

is  not  quenched."  No  language  can  more  awfully  and 
fearfully,  depict  the  terrors  of  future  punishment,  than 
the  account  given  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  ;  Luke, 
xvi.  19 — 31.  The  only  request  the  lost  spirit  presents 
is,  that  ''Lazarus  might  be  sent  to  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger 
in  water  and  cool  my  tongue,  for  I  am  tormented  in  this 
flame."  And  even  this  momentary  and  trifling  allevia- 
tion is  denied.  The  power  of  human  language  and  fan- 
cy is  exhausted.  No  stronger  representation  can  be 
given  or  conceived,  of  the  terribleness  of  hell  torment. 
2.  But  many  of  these  texts  also  go  to  show  the  inter- 
minable nature  of  it.  The  last  for  example.  There 
is  a  great  gulph  fixed  and  there  is  no  passing  out  nor  in. 
It  is  an  impassable  gulph.  The  son  of  man  hath  arisen 
and  shut  to  the  door,  and  those  who  are  without  shall 
never  enter  in- — "  depait  from  me  ye  cursed,  I  never 
knew  you."  Such  language,  from  such  lips ;  0;. ! 
how  it  seals  the  soul  up  in  endless  death  !  And  is  there 
no  hope  at  all?  no  alleviation?  no  termination  ?  Must  it 
flounce,  and  flounder,  and  roll  upon  Lire  flowing  billows 
interminably  ?  When  ten  thorium. 1  years  have  dragged 
away  their  weary  weight,  will  hell  torment  be  but  half 
over?  Will  it  be  but  just  begun  ?  Will  there  be  no  pro- 
portion of  it  past  ? 

"  When  I  have  rolled  these  thousand  years  in  fire, 
Ten  thousand,  thousand  let  me  then  expire." 

Ah  !  no — unhappy  spirit!  Eternal  justice  has  agam^i. 
thee  an  eternal  demand ;  which  cannot  be  satisfied  by  fi- 
nite mortal  in  any  thing  short  of  eternal  ages  :  thou  hast, 
gone  away  into  everlasting  fire. 

Here  we  may  remark,  to  cut  off  licentious  criticism 
at  once,  the  original  terms  (aiCjviov,  ucuvas  -tZ^v  aio>vw)  arc 
the  strongest  that  can  be  used  to  express  endless  dura- 
tion :  or  the  end  of  the  being,  or  thing  to  which  they  are 
applied.  No  words  in  the  Greek  language  are  of  more 
determined  character.  And  therefore,  this  term  is  ap- 
plied to  signify  the  endless  happiness  of  the  righteous — 
"  the  righteous  into  life  eternaV — "these  into  punish- 
ment eternal"  it  is  the  same  Greek  word.  If  then,  as 
universalists  would  have  it,  everlasting  or  eternal  means 
20 


230  universalist's  objection. 

only  a  long  time,  but  not  forever ;  then  it  follows,  that 
the  righteous  are  not  to  live  forever :  the  very  same  word 
describes  the  duration  of  the  punishment  and  the  duration 
of  the  life.  If  the  criticism  be  good  against  the  endless 
duration  of  the  punishment;  it  is  equally  good  against  the 
endless  duration  of  the  happiness  :  if  it  extinguish  hell 
fire  ;  it  also  extinguishes  the  life  of  heaven.  But  more 
than  this ;  it  brings  the  existence  of  the  divine  being 
himself  to  a  close.  For  the  Greek  word  for  everlasting, 
or  eternal,  is  the  strongest  used  to  express  the  duration 
of  God's  existence.  Paul  says,  Christ  offered  himself 
"  through  the  eternal  spirit''  (Heb.  ix.  14.)  and  in  Rom. 
xvi.  26,  he  speaks  "  of  the  everlasting  God,"  in  both 
which  places,  he  uses  the  same  word,  which  is  applied 
to  mark  the  duration  of  heaven  and  of  hell.  Thus,  by  one 
single  criticism,  hell  and  heaven,  angels,  and  men,  de- 
vils, and  God — all — all  are  swept  off.  So  nearly  does  the 
universalist's  doctrine  approach  to  dark,  doleful,  damna- 
ble atheism.  Perhaps  indeed,  this  is  the  object.  These 
men  wish,  perhaps,  to  get  clear  of  all  belief  in  the  being 
of  a  God,  in  hope  of  escaping  the  lashes  of  a  con- 
demning conscience,  that  refuses  to  submit  to  the  hum- 
bling doctrines  of  the  cross.  Alas  !  vain  hope.  Hell  is 
not  so  easily  put  out.  God  is  not  thus  obliterated.  Ah, 
no  !     The  dreadful  reality  recoils  upon  us  continually. 

"  The  sinner  must  be  born  again, 
"  Or  drink  the  wrath  of  God," 

in  an  eternal  hell.     But  many  refuse  the  proffered  sal- 
vation, die  in  their  sins,  and  are  forever  lost. 

Now,  against  these  plain  scriptures,  it  is  vain  to  urge 
abstract  reasonings.  Must  not,  say  these  men,  punish- 
ment be  proportional  to  crime :  and  if  so,  does  it  not  fol- 
low, that  those  who  have  sinned  less  than  others,  must 
be  punished  less,  and  so  at  last  cease  to  suffer ;  when 
they  have  suffered  their  portion.  To  this,  the  answer 
is  very  simple.  To  all  men  the  punishment  is  everlast- 
ing, as  to  duration,  but  the  Bible  represents  it  as  differ- 
ing in  degree.  The  servant  who  knew  his  lord's  will, 
and  did  it  not,  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes — shall 
suffer  a  more  severe  punishment,  than  he  who  knew  not 


universalist's  objection.  231 

his  lord's  will.  In  the  future  state,  the  degrees  of  pun- 
ishment, as  also,  the  degrees  of  happiness,  will  differ ; 
but  all  will  be  alike  in  duration. 

Another  consideration  leads  us  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion ;  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  wicked  in  hell,  will 
gnaw  their  tongues  for  pain,  and  blaspheme  God.  Fiend- 
ish wickedness  will  be  their  employment.  But  this 
wickedness  must  be  followed  by  its  proper  punishment ; 
and  thus,  eternity  of  torment,  and  that  a  progressive  tor- 
ment, is  before  every  impenitent,  lost  soul.  He  must  be- 
come in  the  course  of  ages,  a  giant  devil. 

Again ;  The  modern  doctrine  of  universal  salvation, 
admits  some  punishment  in  future  ;  but  insists  that  after 
a  time,  all  will  be  saved.  That  is — those  whom  the  in- 
vitations of  the  gospel,  the  love  of  Christ  exhibited 
therein,  and  all  the  means  of  grace,  failed  to  convert  unto 
God,  are  sent  to  hell  for  a  while;  and  there,  by  some 
more  efficacious  process  than  Christ  and  his  church 
could  use,  are  soon  converted,  burnt  clean,  and  fit  for 
heaven.  That  is,  the  devil  is  a  more  successful  preach- 
er than  Jesus  Christ !  Hell  is  a  more  hopeful  place  for 
conversion  than  earth  ! !  Christ  converts  whom  he  can 
here,  and  the  hard  cases  are  put  into  more  powerful 
hands  !  ! !     Oh,  horrible  impiety! 

Lastly,  The  same  reasoning,  which  would  reject  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  because  of  its  inconsis- 
tency with  the  love  and  compassion  of  God,  would  re- 
ject all  punishment.  For,  manifestly,  if  punishment  can 
be  dispensed  with,  in  any  degree,  it  can  be,  in  every  de- 
gree. If  the  divine  compassion  is  inconsistent  with  the 
infliction  of  pain  upon  the  creature,  for  one  part  of  du- 
ration, it  must  equally  so  for  another. 

To  this,  it  will  be  answered,  that  punishment  must  be 
proportioned  to  crime.  Some  punishment  is  due  to 
every  crime,  and  the  more  crime,  the  more  punishment. 

I  reply,  that  the  only  power  to  determine  the  measure 
of  penal  suffering,  is  the  power  of  the  lawgiver.  Who 
shall  grade  the  rewards  of  iniquity?  Who  shall  fix  the 
quantum  or  duration,  if  not  God  himself?  But  if  God 
in  his  law  fixes  and  grades  the  punishment  of  crime,  is 
\i  not  manifest  that  we  are  wholly  dependent  upon  reve- 


232  INDEFINITISM. 

Lition  for  our  knowledge  of  both?  Where,  but  in  the 
Bible,  can  we  find  any  certain  decision  as  to  either  ? 
Human  legislators  are  competent,  within  their  sphere,  to 
graduate  crime  and  punishment ;  but  their  sphere  is 
earth.  This  life  only,  is  subject  to  their  control.  They 
never  pretend  to  do  more  than  punish  for  injuries  done 
to  society.  They  leave  vengeance  to  Him,  to  whom 
alone  it  belongeth.  What  may  be  the  amount  and  du- 
ration cf  pain  due  to"  sin,  no  man  ever  pretended  to  say. 
And  the  reason  is  obvious  ;  man  has  no  measure  of  crim- 
inality, absolutely ;  nor  can  he  measure  pain  and  anguish. 
The  possibility  of  measuring  either,  is  utterly  beyond 
our  reach  :  consequently,  to  strike  the  grade  and  propor- 
tion, is  altogether  impossible.  God  only  can  measure 
crime,  and  He  only  can  apportion  its  punishment.  To 
the  revelation  of  his  will  we  must  look  for  light  upon  this 
subject.  And  heret  as  we  have  seen,  the  duration  of 
punishment  described  by  the  same  terms,  by  which  He 
describes  his  own  duration  ;  the  duration  of  the  soul ;  of 
heaven  and  of  hell — it  is  "  everlasting  fire" — it  is  "eter- 
nal punishment" — it  is  a  "  worm  that  never  dies" — its 
victims  "shall  never  enter  into  my  rest" — "they  shall 
not  see  life" — n  cooling  drop  of  water  shall  never  touch 
their  burning  tongues — the  gulf  that  separates  them 
from  life  is  impassable — they  are  sealed  up  in  endless 
despair. 

The  doctrine,  then,  that  Christ  redeemed  and  saved 
all,  is  untrue.  The  atonement,  therefore,  in  its  actual 
efficacy,  as  well  as  in  its  intrinsic  nature,  is  not  univer- 
sal;  but  particular;  not  general;  but  definite. 


EXTENT  OF    THE  .ATONEMENT. 

SECTION  II. 

Objection  second — Indefinitism . 

The  second  theory  which  lies  in  our  way,  concern- 
ing the  extent  of  the  atonement,  is  that  of  indefinitism. 
And  one  of  the  peculiar  difficulties  we  find  in  meeting 


INDEF1NIT1SM.  233 

it,  is  the  fact  of  its  own  indefinite  character.  It  assumes 
several  forms,  two  of  which  I  shall  endeavour  to  arrest 
and  examine,  viz : 

1.  That  Christ  died  for  all  men  alike. 

2.  That  he  died  for  no  man,  or  set  of  men  at  all,  but 
simply  to  satisfy  public  justice. 

As  to  the  former  of  these  theories,  if  I  have  been  able 
to  understand  the  meaning  of  its  advocates,  they  main- 
tain, that  Jesus  offered  himself  a  sacrifice  for  the  whole 
of  the  human  race  :  each  and  every  one  of  the  natural 
descendants  of  Adam  are  alike  included  in  it,  and  what- 
ever may  be  the  value  of  the  atonement,  every  human 
being  has  an  equal  right  to  it;  and  it  may  in  truth  be  said, 
of  every  one,  Christ  suffered  and  died  for  him,  to  make 
atonement  for  him.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  redemp- 
tional  Universalists,  and  with  these  we  have  settled  ac- 
counts. But  those  with  whom  we  have  now  to  do,  deny 
the  universality  of  its  application.  They  say,  the  ap- 
plication of  this  universal  atonement,  is  particular.  It 
becomes  actually  availing  to  a  part  only — to  those  who 
believe  and  repent — to  the  elect. 

To  this  I  answer, 

1.  If  the  atonement  be  universal,  the  salvation — that 
is,  the  actual  application  of  it,  must  be  universal  too ; 
or  then,  the  word  atonement  cannot  be  taken  in  the 
sense  of  the  English  word — reconciliation,  restoration 
to  divine  favour ;  nor  can  it  mean  the  rendering  of 
complete  and  full  satisfaction  to  God's  justice  for  man's 
sin.  Because,  manifestly,  if  the  atonement,  (meaning 
the  reconciliation)  be  universal,  the  salvation  is  so  too. 
For  all  who  are  reconciled,  made  friendly,  restored  to 
favor  with  God,  are  happy — are  saved.  The  concep- 
tion, that  persons  who  are  in  a  state  of  friendship  with 
God,  are  found  in  Hell,  is  monstrous.  No  man  can 
entertain  it  in  his  belief. 

Nor  can  atonement  mean  satisfaction  for  their  sins  : 
because,  to  suppose  that  men,  whose  sins  are  satisfied 
for, — against  whom  justice  has  no  demand,  shall  burn 
in  an  eternal  hell,  is  to  maintain  even  a  more  horrible 
blasphemy  than  in  the  former  case.  It  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  charge  the  pure  and  holy  and  just  God,  with 
20* 


234  .  INDEFINITISM. 

the  most  iniquitous  crime  of  exacting  full  satisfaction 
for  their  sins  from  his  own  son,  until,  both  the  son  and  the 
Father  testified  it  finished ;  and  yet  of  inflicting  the 
punishment  of  these  very  sins  upon  themselves. 

Thus,  if  youadmitthe  doctrine  of  a  real  satisfaction  to 
justice,  by  thesufTerings'ofChrist;andif,  atthesame  time, 
you  maintain,  that  this  satisfaction  is  for  all  men,  you 
must  maintain  that  all  men  are  saved,  or  that  God  sends 
to  eternal  torment  those — a  part  of  those,  against  whom 
the  law  has  no  demand — whose  sins  Christ  has  taken 
away  ! 

Such  is  the  dliemma — plain  to  the  common  sense 
of  all  men — in  which  the  advocate  of  a  general  but  a 
real  atonement,  places  himself.  On  one  or  the  other  of 
its  horns  he  must  hang.  If  he  shrink  from  the  idea, 
that  God  sends  to  perdition — to  hell — a  part  of  those, 
for  whose  sins  his  justice  has  received  full  satisfaction 
— if  his  soul  tremble  at  such  an  insinuation — if  this 
horn  pierce  him  beyond  endurance;  then  he  has  no  re- 
treat, but  into  universal  redemption — he  must  maintain, 
according  to  common  sense — that  all  whose  sins  are  ta- 
ken  away  by  the  death  of  Christ,  must  escape  eternal 
torment,  that  is,  according  to  him — all  men  ate  saved. 

There  is  thus,  no  stopping  place,  between  universal 
atonement — meaning  thereby,  full  satisfaction  to  di- 
vine justice-—  and  universal  salvation.  The  ideas, 
therefore,  of  a  general  atonement,  and  a  particular  re- 
demption, are  irreconcileably  inconsistent.  They  are 
contradictories,  and  can  never  agree. 

It  by  no  means  relieves,  or  even  alleviates  the  diffi- 
culty, to  say,  that  Christ,  in  atoning  for  the  sins  of  all, 
opened  the  door  for  all  ;  so  that  all  could  be  saved  if 
they  would  :  but  inasmuch  as  they  will  not  come  to 
him,  their  refusing  to  come  cuts  them  off.  For,  whilst 
it  is  true,  that  they  refuse  to  come,  and  therefore  perish; 
it  is  also  true,  that  this  refusal  to  come  is,  itself  a  sin — 
the  sin  of  unbelief — and  they  are  condemned  through  it. 
But  they  could  not  be  condemned  for  it,  if  it  had  been 
taken  away  by  Christ's  atonement;  therefore,  the  sin  of 
unbelief  remains  unatoned  for,  and  consequently,  it  is 
not  true  that  He  took  away  all  sin,  of  all,  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself. 


INDEFINITISM.  235 

But.  as  1  am  using  Dr.  Owen's  argument,  let  me  state 
it  in  his  own  words.  (On  Redemption,  B.  in.  C.  3.) 
"  If  Christ  died  in  the  stead  of  all  men,  and  made 
satisfaction  for  their  sins,  then  he  did  it  for  all  their 
sins,  or  only  for  some  of  their  sins.  If  for  some 
only,  who  then  can  be  saved?  if  for  all,  why  then 
are  not  all  saved  ?  They  [his  opponents]  say,  it  is 
because  of  their  unbelief;  they  will  not  believe, 
and  therefore,  are  not  saved :  that  unbelief,  is  it  a 
sin,  or  is  it  not  ?  If  it  be  not,  how  can  it  be  a  cause  of 
damnation  ?  If  it  be,  Christ  died  for  it,  or  he  did  not. 
If  he  did  not,  then  he  died  not  for  all  the  sins  of  all  men:  if 
he  did,  why  is  this  an  obstacle  to  their  salvation  ?  Is 
there  any  new  shift  to  be  invented  for  this  ?  or  must  we 
be  contented  with  the  old,  viz:  because  they  do  not  be- 
lieve :  that  is,  Christ  did  not  die  for  their  unbelief,  or 
rather,  did  not,  by  his  death,  remove  their  unbelief;  be- 
cause they  would  not  believe,  or  because  they  would 
not  themselves  remove  their  unbelief ;  or,  he  died  for 
their  unbelief  conditionally,  that  they  were  not  be- 
lievers. These  do  not  appear  to  me  to  be  sober  asser- 
tions." 

This  argument  has  long  been  opposed  by  cavill,  but  has 
never  been  fairly  rebutted.  After  all  that  has  been  said 
in  opposition  to  it,  it  remains  unanswered,  for  the  good 
and  sufficient  reason,  that  it  is  unanswerable.  For 
manifestly,  if  Christ  by  his  death  took  away  all  the  sins 
of  all  men,  he  took  away  the  sin  of  unbelief;  and  con- 
sequently, no  man  can  be  condemned  for  unbelief ;  for 
what  is  taken  away  by  such  a  sacrifice  as  Christ  offered, 
no  longer  remains,  and  can  no  longer  procure  condem- 
nation. But  if  he  did  not  take  away  this  sin  of  unbe- 
lief, "by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,"  then  he  left  untaken 
away,  the  very  worst  sin  in  all  the  catalogue  of  crime: 
for  "  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned."  And  to 
affirm  that  Christ  satisfied  conditionally,  for  the  sin  of 
unbelief  in  all  men,  and  that  their  belief  is  the  condi- 
tion on  which  their  unbelief  is  taken  away,  is  to  make 
the  removal  of  unbelief,  the  condition  of  its  removal ! 
Christ's  death  shall  atone  for  their  unbelief,  on  condition 
that  they    first  of  themselves  become  believers.     God 


236  INDEFINITISM. 

for  His  sake,  will  forgive  their  sin  of  unbelief,  so  soon 
as  it  no  longer  exists  ! !  He  will  heal  their  disease  on 
condition  that  thev  first  heal  it  themselves  !  Christ  will 
save  their  souls  from  hell,  on  condition  that  they  them- 
selves first  escape  from  hell  and  come  to  heaven  !  ! 
Here  is  the  essence  of  the  Pelagian  heresy — an  attempt 
to  bring  in  human  merit,  as  partially  the  basis  of  human 
salvation.  Scarcely  can  the  heresy  be  named  which 
does  not  grow  from  some  cancerous  root  of  Pelaganism. 

The  above  argument  is  obviously  designed  to  operate 
upon  those,  who  have  scriptural  views  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  atonement — who  admit,  that  the  Saviour,  did,  as 
the  vicarious  substitute  of  his  people,  offer  up  himself 
a  sacrifice  for  sin,  thereby  making  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice  and  reconciling  man  to  God.  And  it  is  fondly 
hoped,  that  its  simplicity,  plainness  and  force,  will  lead 
them  to  the  conclusion,  that  this  full  and  perfect  satis- 
faction, must  be  followed  by  full  and  perfect  reconcilia- 
tion: that  to  maintain,  that  Christ  thus  acted  and  suf- 
fered for  all  human  persons,  is  to  maintain  that  all  hu- 
man persons  must  be  saved ;  which  is  not  true — that 
therefore  He  did  not  make  satisfaction  for  all,  but  only 
for  those,  and  for  all  those  who  shall  go  away  into  ever- 
lasting life — for  all  the  redeemed.  If  this  conclusion  be 
not  admitted,  then  it  must  be  denied,  that  Christ  offered 
any  real  propitiatory,  vicarious  sacrifice,  and  thereby 
made  any  real  full  and  complete  satisfaction  to  the  claims 
of  justice  for  any  sinners  whatever.  For  obviously,  if 
he  suffered  alike  for  all  men — if  he  made  atonement 
equally  for  all  men,  and  yet  all  men  are  not  saved — sal- 
vation, is  not  secured  by  the  atonement  at  all.  If 
Christ  paid  the  price  of  redemption  for  all  men — if  he 
redeemed  all  men  alike,  and  yet  all  men  are  not  redeem- 
ed, his  redemption  is  worth  just  nothing  at  all — salva- 
tion is  not  an  effect  of  it. 

Hence,  the  first  form  of  indefinitism  must  be  aban- 
doned. There  is  not  a  tenable  port  in  the  whole  ship. 
Every  point  is  assailable,  and  there  is  no  safety  in  her. 
Universalism  rakes  her  from  stem  to  stern.  Paulism, 
Calvanism,  and  Christianism,  rends  her  canvass,  and 
pierces  her  sides   and    leaves   not   a  solid  plank  in  her 


INDEFINITISM.  237 

hull.  She  is  obliged  to  strike;  but  first  she  calls  in  her 
lagging  sister  in  the  rear. 

2.  The  second  form  of  the  doctrine  of  indefinite  atone- 
ment, claims  our  attention,  viz  :  That  Christ  Jesus,  our 
Lord,  did  not  make  restitution  to  divine  justice  at  all, 
for  the  sins  of  any  man,  or  set  of  men.  He  did  not  die 
for  men  in  such  sense  as  to  purchase  salvation.  His  ob- 
ject, in  giving  himself  up  to  death,  was  simply  to  afford 
an  exhibition  of  God's  hatred  against  sin.  God  was 
determined  to  pardon  the  sins  of  men  ;  but  then  to 
pardon  sin, — to  pass  it  by,  and  not  punish  it,  might 
give  reason  to  believe  that  his  moral  government  did 
not  require  sin  to  be  punished.  Thus  the  confidence 
of  the  moral  universe  in  God  might  be  shaken.  Holy 
and  righteous  beings  seeing  unholy  and  unrighteous 
beings  admitted  to  favour  equally  with  themselves, 
might  begin  to  tremble  for  their  own  safety.  If  this, 
say  they,  may  be,  what  prevents  a  reverse  change  from 
occcurring  ?  Why  may  not  holy  beings  be  thrust  down 
to  hell,  in  violation  of  justice,  if  unholy  beings  may  be 
raised  up  to  heaven  in  violation  of  justice.  Thus  the 
pillars  of  Jehovah's  throne  begin  to  totter.  The  moral 
fabric  of  the  universe  to  vacillate. 

To  prevent  this,  and  to  give  firmness  to  the  system — 
to  establish  public  justice  and  so  to  secure  the  rights  of 
the  universe,  God  holds  up  in  the  sufferings  of  his  own 
Son,  an  awful  display  of  his  hatred  against  sin  :  and  so 
gives  assurance  that  whilst  he  does  pardon  sinners,  he 
yet  hates  sin.  To  illustrate  and  enforce  this  theory,  an 
old  scholastic  distinction  of  justice  is  sometimes  adopted. 
Justice,  say  the  friends  of  this  system,  is  divided  into 
three  kinds  ;  viz  :  commutative,  distributive  and  public. 

"  Commutative  justice  respects  property  only.  '  It 
consists  in  an  equal  exchange  of  benefits,'  or  in  restor- 
ing to  man  his  own." 

"  Distributive  justice  respects  the  moral  character  of 
men.  It  respects  them  as  accountable  creatures,  obedi- 
ent or  disobedient.  It  consists  in  ascertaining  their  vir- 
tue and  sin,  and  in  bestowing  just  rewards,  or  inflicting 
just  punishments." 

•'  Public  or  general  justice,  respects  what  is  fit  or  right 


238  INDEFINITISM. 

as  to  the  character  of  God,  and  the  good  of  the  universe. 
In  this  sense,  justice  comprises  all  moral  goodness,  and 
properly  means  the  rightousness  or  rectitude  of  God*  by 
which  all  his  actions  are  guided,  with  a  supreme  regard 
to  the  greatest  good.  Justice,  considered  in  this  view, 
forbids,  that  any  thing  should  take  place  in  the  great 
plan  of  God,  which  would  tarnish  his  glory,  or  subvert 
the  authority  of  his  law." 

Such  is  the  surgical  operations  which  the  old  scholas- 
tic theological  dissecting  knife,  in  modern  hands,  has  per- 
formed upon  a  simple  and  indivisible  attribute  of  God ! 
The  demonstration  then  proceeds.  "  Did  Christ  satisfy 
commutative  justice?  Certainly  not."  That  is,  for  sins 
about  property,  Christ  has  made  no  satisfaction!  He  has 
made  no  restitution;  restored  nothing  to  the  violated  law." 
So,  distributive  justice  Christ  did  not  satisfy.  For  all 
sins  respecting  moral  character  he  made  no  distribution  ! 
Paul  is  now  as  deserving  of  hell  torment  as  Judas  is  ! ! 

But  public  justice  Christ  did  satisfy.  Christ's  atone- 
ment rendered  it  right  and  proper  to  forgive  sin.  Such 
forgiveness  is  consistent  with  the  good  of  the  universe. 
Public  justice  is  perfectly  satisfied  by  the  death  of 
Christ.* 

Now,  in  view  of  such  representations,  you  will  please 
to  remember,  that  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  substitution, 
representation  and  consequent  imputation  of  the  believer's 
sin  to  Christ,  and  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  the  believ- 
er, is  denied  by  these  moral  dissectors  of  God's  justice. 
Jesus  bore  no  sin — he  was  not  held  by  the  law  of  God 
as  responsible  for  the  sins  of  his  people.  There  is  a 
moral  sensitiveness — or  I  might  say,  sentiment  all  sm, 
connected  with  the  error  we  combat,  which  shudders  at 
the  doctrine  of  sin  being  imputed  to  Christ  and  of  his 
being  held  guilty  in  the  eye  of  the  law.  That  Christ 
should  be  viewed  as  a  sinner,  and  treated  by  the  law  as 
an  offender,  for  the  sins  of  his  people,  is  a  thought  too 
horrible  for  the  delicate  sensibility  of  a  Pelagian  heart. 
Whereas  the  Bible  says  "he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin 
for  us,  who  knew  no  sin."  2.  Cor.  v.  21.     He  was  held 

*  See  Dr.  Moxcey,  quoted  in  Ridgley,  n.  276,  note. 


INDEFINITISM.  239 

and  accounted  a  sinner  and  consequently  suffered.  Re- 
collecting these,  let  us  remark  on  the  above  distinction 
and  the  scheme  it  is  adduced  to  support. 

1.  The  distinction  has  no  foundation  in  the  word  of 
God.  Not  one  scripture,  it  is  believed,  nor  allusion  of 
scripture  can  be  fairly  adduced  to  support  it.  Where 
does  the  Bible  say  any  thing  about  public  justice  ?  The 
passage,  Rom.  in.  21.  "  But  now  the  righteousness  of 
God  without  the  law,  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by 
the  law  and  the  prophets,"  is  indeed,  brought  forward 
by  the  author  quoted  above,  and  its  terms  transposed  and 
its  meaning,  as  I  think,  perverted.  In  the  preceding  part  of 
the  chapter,  Paul  had  shewn,  not  that  public  justice  had 
been  violated — he  knew  of  no  such  thing — but  that  men 
had  individually  sinned  and  were  individually  deserving 
of  death.  The  sins,  which  he  particularizes,  are  chiefly 
of  the  very  kind  which  the  distinctions  we  oppose,  clas- 
sifies under  offences  against  commutative  and  destribu- 
tive  justice.  And  yet  Paul  is  made  to  teach  that  public 
justice  alone,  is  satisfied  ! 

2.  This  division  of  divine  justice  has  no  foundation  in 
sound  philosophy — that  is,  in  common  sense.  Justice 
is  that,  in  a  moral  being,  which  leads  him  to  act  rightly, 
that  is,  according  to  the  laws  of  morality,  in  reference  to 
others — to  give  to  every  one  his  due.  It  is  the  same 
principle,  as  to  its  essential  nature,  in  the  humblest  pri- 
vate individual,  the  mightiest  earthly  monarch  and  the 
eternal  Judge.  The  ten  thousand  modes  of  its  manifes- 
tation modify  not  its  nature,  but  only  its  form  of  expres- 
sion. To  administer  justice  is  to  give  to  every  one 
what  is  right — what  the  rule  of  law,  under  which  he  is 
placed,  allows  to  him.  To  give  him  more  or  less,  is 
injustice.  When  we  say,  God  is  just,  the  meaning 
plainly  is,  that  He  gives  to  his  creatures  what  is  due  to 
them,  agreeably  to  the  law  under  which  he  has  placed 
them. 

3.  On  this  scheme,  which  denies  the  imputation  of 
the  sins  of  his  people  to  Christ,  it  is  no  easy  matter  to 
see  how  public  justice,  in  the  sense  even  of  those  who 
hold  the  distinction,  can  be  satisfied.  Jesus  Christ  is 
not  viewed  by  the  law  as  a  sinner — the  sins  of  his  peo- 


240  INDEFINITISM. 

pie  are  not  imputed  to  him — he  is  not  liable  to  punish- 
ment on  their  account — he  was  not  the  substitute,  the 
representative  of  his  people — he  did  not  act  for  them,  or 
suffer  for  them  as  a  vicarious  person.  Such  are  the 
grounds  held,  and  to  account  for  Christ's  sufferings  and 
man's  salvation,  they  say  he  died  to  satisfy  public  jus- 
lice  !  "Perfect  justice  therefore,  is  done  to  the  uni- 
verse, though  all  transgressors  be  not  punished  accord- 
ing to  their  personal  demerit."  Perfect  justice  is  done, 
though  justice  is  not  at  all  administered !  Transgressors 
are  not  punished  ;  yet  perfect  justice  is  done  !  ! 

But  even  this  is  not  the  weakest  nor  the  tenderest 
point.  "  Perfect  justice  is  done,"  How  ?  Why  by 
God's  putting  the  bitter  cup  of  his  wrath  into  the  hands 
of  his  own  Son  ;  although  that  Son  had  himself  done  no 
wrong,  nor  was  he  in  law,  according  to  these  men,  ac- 
countable for  the  sin  of  any  others.  No  sin  is  imputed 
to  him,  either  of  his  own  or  his  people's,  and  yet  he 
suffers,  bleeds  and  dies  in  extreme  agony  !  The  Lamb 
of  God — holy,  harmless,  undefiled  and  separate  from 
sinners ;  no  guile  in  his  mouth,  no  guilt  on  his  head — 
no  endless  catalogue  of  his  people's  sins  laid  upon  him  ; 
heaven,  earth,  and  hell  testify  "he  did  no  evil" — and 
yet  it  pleased  the  eternal  Judge  to  bruise  him  !  "  Per- 
fect justice  is  done."  Oh,  if  this  be  "perfect  justice," 
who  will  define  perfect  injustice?  Where,  out  of  hell, 
or  in  it,  shall  we  search  for  that  transaction,  which  shall 
be  held  up  before  the  moral  universe  as  the  most  illus- 
trious and  revolting  instance  of  unalloyed  iniquity,  im- 
piety and  injustice  1  If  this  be  an  "  exhibition"  of  God's 
hatred  against  sin  ;  Oh,  where,  in  his  wide  universe, 
shall  we  search  for  an  exhibition  of  his  love  to  holiness  l 
If  the  deep  groans  of  Gethsemane  and  the  piercing  shriek 
of  Calvary,  are  unavailing  to  remove  this  cup,  and  yet  no 
sin  was  imputed  to  Jesus,  to  what  transaction  shall  we 
turn   our  eyes  as  the  monster  cruelty  of  this  universe  ? 

Look  at  the  case,  with  the  unclouded  eye  of  calm 
reason.  The  son  of  God  does  suffer.  But,  say's  the 
system  we  combat,  he  is  not  guilty — he  has  no  sin  of 
his  own — no  sin  of  others  is  imputed  to  him,  which  can 
be  the  just  moral  cause  of  his  death — he  dies  not  to  sat- 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  241 

isfy  the  law  for  his  people's  sins — but  only  to  exhibit 
God's  hatred  against  sin  in  general — and  to  give  assu- 
rance to  the  moral  universe  that  God  is  just  whilst  he 
forgives  sin :  and  so  to  quiet  the  fears  of  holy  angels 
and  men,  and  rivet  the  convictions  of  unholy  angels  and 
men,  that  God  is  just. 

Now,  I  ask  you,  can  you  conceive  of  a  more  dread- 
ful act  of  injustice  than  is  presented  in  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  on  the  supposition  that  his  people's  sin  is  not 
imputed  to  him  ?  If  you  cannot, 

I  ask  again,  how  can  this  give  security  to  the  moral 
universe  ?  Must  it  not  do  exactly  the  contrary  ?  May  not 
Gabriel  say,  If  Jesus  thus  suffered,  having  no  sin  to  ac- 
count for,  of  his  own  or  any  others',  may  not  I  also,  and 
all  this  shining  host  be  brought  to  endure  such  degra- 
tion  and  anguish  '?  Where  is  our  security  ?  Whose  head 
so  high  as  not  to  be  thus  bowed  down  ?  Whose  crown 
so  safe,  as  not  to  be  thus  cast  to  the  dust? 

Return  we  then,  dear  reader,  to  the  simple  and  glori- 
ous doctrine  of  salvation,  by  and  through  the  vicarious 
obedience  and  death  of  our  divine  Surety.  He  bore  our 
sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree.  Thus  God's  justice 
is  satisfied  and  calls  for  our  deliverance  from  death,  and 
restoration  to  eternal  joys.  Here  is  nothing  indefinite 
— nothing  uncertain — nothing  conditional — here  is  "an 
everlasting  covenant  with  you,  even  the  sure  mercies  of 
David." 

SECTION  III* 

The  intrinsic  sufficiency  of  the  Atonement. 

We  have  been  shut  up,  by  an  examination  into  the 
nature  of  that  special  form  of  moral  government,  which 
God  has  extended  over  man, — 'and  by  an  inspection  of 
its  principles,  as  they  are  applied  in  "the  covenant  of 
grace, — we  have  been  shut  up  to  the  conclusion,  that 
the  death  of  the  Son  of  God,  rendered  a  true,  proper  arid 
vicarious  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  for  all  the  sins  of 
all  the  saved  ;  and  that  this,  its  essential  nature,  is  the 
very  thing,  in  the  atonement,  which  secures  the  salva- 
21 


242  SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

tion  of  all  God's  people.  The  legal  restitution  which 
Christ,  as  their  representative,  rendered  to  the  law  for 
his  people,  renders  their  salvation  sure  and  certain,  as  a 
matter  of  right  to  their  Saviour. 

But,  it  is  said,  is  not  Christ's  death  and  its  attendant 
sufferings,  intrinsically  of  themselves,  sufficient  for  the 
salvation  of  all  mankind  ?  Is  not  his  atonement  of  suffi- 
cient value  for  the  redemption  of  all  men  ?  Is  it  not  of 
infinite  worth,  and  therefore,  sufficient  for  all  ?  And  may 
we  not  therefore  say,  he  died  for  all  ? 

To  these  interrogations  a  serious  and  calm  response 
is  due:  and, 

1.  As  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  atonement: 

It  is  plain,  that  the  sufficiency  of  any  penal  satisfac- 
tion, depends  entirely  upon  the  law  prescribing  it. 
The  will  of  God  only,  can  define  what  the  law  shall  de- 
mand as  a  satisfaction.  That,  and  that  only,  is  suffi- 
cient, which  meets  the  precise  claim  of  justice.  Less 
than  this,  Christ  could  not  offer,  and  close  the  offering 
by  saying,  "  it  is  finished:"  more  than  this,  God  could 
not  put  into  the  cup  of  his  sorrows. 

2.  I  must  think,  that  the  honor  done  to  divine  justice, 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  is  equally  great,  as  if  all  the 
race  of  Adam  had  been  left  to  drink  the  wrath  divine 
forever.  Consequently,  the  stability  of  God's  moral 
government,  is  as  complete,  as  if  man  had  never  sinned. 
God  has  given  to  the  moral  universe,  in  the  infliction  of 
this  punishment  upon  his  own  Son,  for  the  sins  of  his 
people,  the  highest  testimony  of  which  we  know  any 
thing,  of  his  hatred  towards  sin;  as  he  has  given  in  his 
resurrection  and  the  salvation  of  all  for  whom  He  prays 
the  Father,  the  most  illustrious  display  of  his  righteous 
regard  to  his  own  righteous  law. 

3.  I  must  also  think,  that  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  number  of  the  finally  saved.  The 
penalty  of  the  law  is  the  same,  whether  one  or  two,  or 
a  thousand  persons  are  concerned.  Whether  the  Fa- 
ther gives  ten  millions  to  his  Son  as  the  reward  of  his 
service — or  ten  million  times  ten  millions,  the  obedi- 
ence and  sufferings  of  Jesus  are  the  same.  It  was  for 
him  to  meet  the  claims  of  law.     But  the  demand  of  law 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  243 

was  obedience  and  death.  This  obedience  10  the  pre- 
cept, and  this  meeting  of  the  penalty  is  the  same, 
whether  one  man  or  the  whole  race  are  to  be  saved.  I 
have,  therefore,  no  sympathy  with  the  doctrine,  that  the 
sufferings  of  Jesus  must  have  been  graduated  according 
to  the  number  of  the  saved  :  so  that  if  the  number  were 
increased,  there  must  be  a  pro  rata  increase  to  his  suf- 
ferings. This  doctrine  seems  to  be  founded  on  the 
hypothesis  of  a  scale  to  measure  pains:  at  least  it  ques- 
tions the  correctness  of  a  principle  sanctioned  by  sound 
laws  among  men,  viz:  that  penal  inflictions  have  no  re- 
gard to  the  number  of  persons  implicated.  If  one  man 
be  murdered  by  one  man,  the  one  murderer  only  is  put 
to  death:  if  ten  men  be  murdered  by  one,  the  penalty  is 
the  same — one  man  only  dies  :  If  ten  men  are  concern- 
ed in  the  murder  of  one,  the  ten  must  be  put  to  death. 
The  law  connects  sin  and  death.  Here  again,  let  me 
call  your  attention  to  the  identity  of  principle  in  the 
doctrines  of  grace  and  the  morality  of  the  common  laws 
which  govern  society.  Let  us  ever  bear  in  mind,  that 
God  has  made  it  necessary  for  man  to  act,  in  the  affairs 
of  this  life,  to  a  large  extent,  upon  the  great  principles 
embodied  in  the  covenants.  The  truths  of  religion  are 
none  other  than  the  eternal  truths  of  unchanging  moral- 
ity. 

If  then  the  sufferings  of  the  Redeemer  must  be  the 
same,  whether  one  or  one  million  be  the  number  of  his 
people;  and  if  the  number  can  be  defined  by  none  but 
God  himself,  the  question  about  the  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment is,  in  reality,  a  mere  question  of  fact — does  God 
save  all  men  ?  Did  the  Father  give  all  men  to  Christ  as 
his  peculiar  people?  Did  Christ  undertake,  in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  to  bring  all  human  beings  to  eternal  glo- 
ry? And  these  amount  to  the  inquiry — are  all  men 
saved  ?  For  surely,  all  that  the  Father  hath  given  him, 
he  hath  kept  and  will  raise  them  up  at  the  last  day, 
Jn.  xvn,  6—12.  "I  pray  for^them;  I  pray  not  for  the 
world  ;  but  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me."  Was 
it  the  design  and  purpose  of  Christ,  when  he  paid  the 
ransom,  to  deliver  by  it,  the  whole  of  mankind  ?  If  it 
was  not  his  purpose,  then,  in  no  sense  can  it  be  said,  he 


244  FALLACIOUS  ARGUMENT. 

redeemed  all  men — in  no  sense  can  it  be  said,  he  made 
atonement  for  all.  Jesus,  by  appointment  of  the  Fa- 
ther, suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law.  Now,  the  persons 
who  are  to  be  saved  by  his  death,  are  they  for  whom 
he  made  atonement.  He  could  not  have  suffered  at  all, 
unless  the  sins  of  his  people  had  been  laid  upon  him. 
These  sins  were  laid  upon  him  by  the  Father — "the  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him,  the  iniquity  of  us  all,"  Isa.  liii,  6. 
And  in  the  preceding'  verso,  the  prophet  defines  the 
phrase,  "us  all,"  when  he  says,  "  with  his  stripes  we 
are  healed."  The  sins  of  all  the  persons  who  are  heal- 
ed, were  laid  on  Christ  by  the  Father.  Thus,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  the  very  nature  of  the  transaction 
defines  its  limit.  The  intention  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  is  abundantly  revealed  :  it  is  to  save  his  people — 
to  redeem  them  from  all  iniquity — "I  pray  for  them  ;  I 
pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast 
given  me" — Unless,  therefore,  it  can  be  shewn,  that  the 
intention  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  was,  and  is,  to 
save  all  mankind — that  is,  unless  it  was  their  intention 
to  do  what  the  Bible  tells  us  never  shall  be  done — it  re- 
mains true,  the  atonement  was  made  for  the  saved  only, 
and  not  at  all  for  the  damned.  Jesus  never  intended 
to  bring  to  eternal  life,  those  of  whom  he  says,  "these 
shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment" — "  depart  from 
me,  ye  cursed,  I  never  knew  you."  Now  this  intention 
is  the  limit  and  bound  of  the  atonement.  It  is  the  in- 
tention that  constitutes  it  an  atonement.  Whilst,  there- 
fore, it  remains  an  admitted  and  glorious  truth,  that  the 
satisfaction  is  sufficient,  because  it  is  a  satisfaction  ;  and 
the  atonement  infinitely  valuable  in  itself,  still  it  is  an 
atonement  and  satisfaction  made  only  for  the  flock  of 
the  great  Shepherd. 

SECTION  IV. 

But  Christ  died  in  some  sense  for  all  men. 

There  is  yet  another  shade  of  the  doctrine  of  general 
atonement,  to  be  noticed  very  briefly,  viz:  that,  as  the 
surgeon  of  a  regiment,  is    the  surgeon  of  every  man  in 


FALLACIOUS  ARGUMENT.  245 

it,  so  that  every  soldier  and  officer  may  point  to  him, 
and  say,  'that  is  my  surgeon,'  so  is  Christ  the  Saviour 
of  all  the  world;  so  that  every  man  may  say,  'that  is 
my  Saviour.'  As  every  soldier  has  a  right  to  call  upon 
the  surgeon,  so  every  sinner  has  a  right  to  call  upon 
Christ. 

This  comparison  is  fallacious. 

1st.  Because  the  military  surgeon  is  employed  and 
paid  for  his  services;  and  those  services  are  a  part  of  the 
consideration  in  the  contract  between  the  soldier  and 
his  government,  at  the  time  he  enlisted,  and  he  has  a 
right,  which  he  can  enforce,  to  command  the  services  of 
the  Surgeon.  But  the  great  Physician  renders  all  his 
services  gratuitously.  2d.  Because,  the  regiment  is 
put  under  the  surgeon's  care — the  whole  regiment.  He 
is  not  the  surgeon  of  the  whole  army.  His  duties  do 
not  call  him  beyond  his  own  specific  charge.  Now 
here  the  comparison  holds  in  part.  The  Great  Physi- 
cian has  his  specific  charge.  He  is  not  bound  nor  does 
he  administer  his  spiritual  medicines  to  the  soldiers  of 
another  leader  :  the  legions  of  the  damned  are  not  heal- 
ed by  the  Great  Physician  :  nor  can  they  in  truth  af- 
firm, 'he  is  our  physician.'  3d.  Because,  The  com- 
parison is  deficient  in  another  respect.  All  the  soldiers 
of  the  regiment  do  not  need  the  services  of  a  surgeon — 
that  necessity  is  a  contingency.  But  all  his  spiritual 
army,  who  are  by  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  put  under  the 
Captain  of  Salvation, ?do  need  his  healing  medicines,  and 
are  utterly  unable  to  perform  any  services  in  the  ranks, 
until  after  He  shall  have  applied  the  balm  of  Gilead  to 
the  healing  of  their  hurt.  To  make  the  comparison 
hold,  every  soldier  must  be  in  the  hospital,  (or  in  the 
grave,)  and  utterly  helpless  ;  and  the  surgeon  must  be 
bound  to  restore  every  man  of  them  to  the  ranks  and 
ensure  his  life  through  the  war. 

Reasonings,  from  these  loose  analogies,  are  very  f\x\? 
safe. 

21* 


246  respite — Christ's  atonement. 


SECTION  V. 

Ml  men  enjoy  a  respite  from  death  and  hell,  in  conse- 
quence of  Christ's  atonement. 

Here  is  a  sense  in  which  it  can  be  said  the  atonement  is 
general.  If  the  meaning  be,  that  wicked,  unbelieving 
men — men  who  finally  perish,  do  experience  many 
temporal  blessings,  and  a  respite  from  eternal  burnings, 
as  a  consequence  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  I  admit 
it.  If  there  had  been  ten  righteous  men  in  Sodom,  it 
would  not  have  been  destroyed.  This  is  a  clear  Bible 
principle.  Man  by  sin,  forfeited  that  right  to  food  and 
clothing  which  God  gave  to  him  at  his  creation  ;  and 
the  right  can  be  restored  only  by  a  reversion  of  the  act 
of  forfeiture.  Thus,  true  believers  in  Christ  have,  in 
and  through  him,  a  right  to  their  daily  bread.  The 
righteous,  and  the  righteous  only,  have  a  promise  in  the 
Bible,  of  food  and  all  other  necessaries.  And  because, 
the  present  race  of  wicked  men,  are  the  forefathers  of  a 
race,  who  are  or  shall  be  the  seed  of  the  blessed,  they 
are  spared.  Thus  the  world  of  ungodly  men  are  saved 
from  death,  for  a  time,  by  the  good  providence  of  our 
Heavenly  Father,  "the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour 
ef  all  men,  especially  of  them  that  believe,"  1.  Tim.  iv, 
10.  And  this  I  take  to  be  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage. 
This  phase  "  the  Living  God"  is  not  applied  in  the 
scriptures  as  a  distinguishing  epithet  of  Christ;  but  as 
descriptive  of  the  Father,  as  the  God  of  providence. 
The  Apostle  is  speaking  of  trust  in  God,  not  as  to  the 
direct  matter  of  salvation,  but  as  to  temporal  good  things 
— the  bounties  of  providence.  God  saves  men  from 
death,  and  bestows  his  favours  upon  all  men  ;  but  has, 
and  exercises  a  special  regard  to  them  that  believe. 

Yet,  whilst  these  things  are  so,  it  appears  to  me  alto- 
gether improper  to  say,  that  the  atonement  is  for  all  men. 
The  circumstance  of  tne  unbelieving  and  ungodly  world 
deriving  benefit  incidentally  from  the  atonement,  by  no 
jneans  justifies  the  language,  that  it  was  made  for  them. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

OBJECTIONS  FOUNDED  ON    PARTICULAR    TEXTS,  AGAINST 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  LIMITED  ATONEMENT,  STATED 

AND  ANSWERED. 

It  will  not  be  expected,  that  I  should  take  up  and  re- 
spond to  all  the  arguments  for  all  kinds  of  indefinite  and 
universal  atonement,  which  claim  a  foundation  in  some 
text  of  scripture.  This  work  has  been  done  by  various 
hands;  and  the  reader  is  referred  to  Dr.  Owen's  "Death 
of  death,  in  the  death  of  Christ,"  for  a  most  masterly 
exposition  of  all  these  passages,  b.  iv.  c.  ii. — v.  Ail 
that  the  nature  of  my  undertaking  will  allow,  is  a  re- 
futation of  a  few  of  the  stronger  arguments,  by  a  fair 
exposition  of  the  passages  on  which  they  are  attempted 
to  be  founded.  And  first,  let  us  lay  down  the  principle 
of  interpretation  upon  which  we  proceed  f 

Viz :  General  terms  must  be  restricted  and  under- 
stood, in  consistency  with  the  nature  of  the  subject  dis- 
cussed and  the  general  drift  and  meaning  of  the  writer. 
This  rule  is  well  established  amongst  critics;  as  to  com- 
mon sense  it  is  obviously  true.  Let  us  apply  to  a  few 
of  the  texts  supposed  to  teach  indefinite  atonement. 
There  are  two  classes  of  these  texts ;  viz  :  those  where 
the  term  world  occurs,  or  whole  world  ;  and  where  the 
term  all  or  every  occurs. 

SECTION  I. 

Arguments  from  the  term,  world,  answered. 

The  very  strongest  perhaps,  is  1.  John  ii.  1,  2. 
"  And  if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Advocate  with 
the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous ;  and  he  is 
the  propitiation  for  our  sins  :  and  not  for  ours  only, 
but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."     Hence  it  is 


248  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

argued,  in  some  sense,  Christ  is  the  propitiation  for  the 
sins  of  all  men,  or  the  whole  world  means  all  men. 

The  point  toward  a  fair  exposition  here,  is  to  settle 
the  meaning  of  propitiation.  The  Greek  word,  fauopos, 
is  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  only  one  other  place, 
viz  :  1.  Jhon  iv.  10.  God  "  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins."  It  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  five 
times;  viz:  Am.  viii.  14.  "  They  swear  by  the  sin  of 
Samaria,  and  say,  "Thy  God  O,  Dan,  liveth."  Here 
sin  stands  for  sin  offering.  And  inasmuch  as  the  real  and 
efficient  sin  offering  of  the  Bible,  is  also  the  Priest  who 
offers  it,  the  object  of  their  idolatrous  worship,  is  called 
their  sin  offering  or  propitiation.  So  it  is  in  Ezek.  xliv. 
27.  "he  shall  offer  his  sin  offering  saith  the  Lord  God" — 
his  sin  offering — that  which  appeases  God.  Num.  v.  8. 
Here  it  is  translated  atonement — a  sin  offering  procur- 
ing reconciliation.  In  Psalm  cxxx.  4.  it  is  translated, 
forgiveness  .  "But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee" — 
a  propitiatory  sacrifice  that  ensures  pardon.  The  verb 
is  used,  Luke  xviii.  13.  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sin- 
ner"— be  propitiated,  rendered  friendly  and  so  extend 
pardon.  So,  the  only  other  place  in  which  it  occurs, 
Heb.  ii.  17, — "  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of 
the  people — to  propitiate — to  render  God  friendly  and 
secure  forgiveness  to  the  people. 

So  the  kindred  word  translated  propitiation,  Rom. 
iii.  25.  "  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness 
for  the  confession  of  sins."  And,  Heb.  ix.  5.  it  is  trans- 
lated mercy  seat,  "  the  cherubim  of  glory  overshadowing 
the  mercy  seat" — the  mercy  seat  of  the  ark,  being  an  em- 
blem of  Christ  as  the  reconciler  between  God  and  man. 

From  all  these  it  is  manifest,  that  propitiation  is  the 
actual  restoring  to  favour  and  friendship,  of  those  who 
were  alienated  and  hostile.  This,  Jesus  does  by  his 
removing  of  sin,  the  cause  of  enmity  between  God  and 
man,  and  the  consequent  procurement  of  forgiveness 
from  God  and  gratitude  and  love  from  man.  To  render 
God  propitious  and  man  alive  to  a  sense  of  divine  good- 
ness, is  the  full  idea  of  propitiation.  Now,  that  Jesus 
is  the  propitiation — that  he  has  actually  restored  friend- 


TERM,  WORLD,  ANSWERED.  249 

ship  between  man  and  God  is  certain.  But  to  what  ex- 
tent? Has  he  propitiated  God  to  all  mankind,  and  all 
mankind  to  God  ?  Then  is  universal  salvation  true. 
But  universal  salvation  is  false,  therefore  Christ  has  not 
propitiated  all  men.  What  then  will  you  do  with  the 
universal  terms,  "  the  whole  world?"  I  remark, 

2.  It  is  manifest  in  the  very  words  themselves,  that 
all  men  absolutely  are  not  meant.  Because  he  is  speak- 
ing expressly  of  believers,  "  little  children,"  such  as  rest 
with  childlike  credulity  upon  their  Father's  word — chil- 
dren in  knowledge,  many  of  whom  were  for  limiting 
salvation  to  the  Jews,  and  could  scarce  endure  a  Gentile 
believer  to  come  into  the  church,  except  at  the  door  of 
circumcision.  The  opposition  that  the  Apostle  makes 
between  us  and  the  world,  in  this  very  place,  is  sufficient 
to  manifest  j  unto  whom  he  wrote.  So,  John  says, 
(gospel  xi.  51,  52,)  "  he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should 
die  for  that  nation,  And  not  for  that  nation  only,  but  that 
also  he  should  gather  together  in  one,"  all  men  of  all 
nations  ? — no — "  but  the  children  of  God  that  were  scat- 
tered abroad"  among  all  nations.  To  this,  the  passage 
before  us  is  a  parallel.  Jesus  is  the  propitiation — he  re- 
stores to  friendship  the  children  of  God,  not  only  among 
us  Jews,  but  also,  those  scattered  over  the  whole  world. 

3.  The  phrase,  whole  world,  is  by  the  other  terms  of 
the  text  and  by  the  general  drift  of  this  writer,  limited 
to  "  the  whole  world"  of  God's  children — the  entire 
body  of  his  redeemed  ones.  That  the  words  do  not  in 
every  place  necessarily  mean  all  mankind,  it  will  be  suf- 
ficient for  us  to  shew.  For,  if  sometimes  the  general 
terms  are,  by  necessity,  restricted,  we  are  under  no  ob- 
ligation to  admit  them  as  absolutely  universal  here.  Dr. 
Owen  thinks  that  there  is  but  a  single  case  in  which  they 
must  thus  be  understood.  (1)  We  quote  Luke,  ii.  1. — 
"there  went  out  a  decree  from  Csesar  Augustus,  that  all  the 
world  should  be  taxed."  Here  all  the  world  is  certain- 
ly no  more  than  the  Roman  empire.  It  will  not  affect 
this,  that  the  terms  are  different  (rtaaav  ?r(v  6vrtov  fiiv^v) 
they  are  equivalent  to  whole  world — all  the  inhabited 
earth.     Now,  is  it  true  that  all  the  inhabited  earth,  i.  e, 


■ 


250  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

all  men  were  included  in  this  decree  ?  Clearly,  the  gen- 
eral term  is  limited  by  the  sense  and  the  connexion. 

(2)  Col.  i.  6.  '•  The  gospel  is  come  unto  you  as  it  is 
in  all  the  world."  Does  all  the  world  here  mean,  ab- 
solutely and  unqualifiedly,  all  mankind  ?  Had  all  men 
absolutely  heard  the  gospel  ?  Why  then  do  we  still  la- 
bour to  send  missionaries  ?  Manifestly,  the  universal 
terms  must  be  restricted  by  the  sense  and  connexion. 
All  the  world,  can  therefore,  only  mean,  that  the  gos- 
pel, instead  of  being  confined  to  the  land  of  Judea  and 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  is  gone  abroad, 
without  restraint,  into  very  many  places. 

(3)  Very  similar  to  this,  is  Rom.  i.  8. — "your  faith  is 
spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  world"  (£v  6?.a  *<$  xosfi^t.) 
Must  this  mean  that  the  faith  of  the  Roman  believers 
was  known  and  spoken  of  by  all  the  race  of  man  ?  Did 
all  men  every  where  speak  of  it  ?  Did  one  man  out  of 
every  ten  thousand  in  the  Roman  empire  know  any 
thing  about  it  ?  But,  moreover,  this  speaking  about  their 
faith,  is  approbatory :  they  who  spake  of  it,  commended 
it.  Did  all  the  people  of  Rome,  and  of  the  empire,  and 
of  all  other  nations,  admire  and  commend  the  faith  of  the 
handful  of  obscure  believers  at  Rome  ?  How  perfectly 
absurd  !  What  then  does  he  mean  ?  Obviously,  the  be- 
lieving world — the  world  of  believers.  The  disciples 
every  where  heard  of  their  faith  and  thanked  God  for  it. 
The  whole  world  here,  is  equivalent  to  the  Jwhole  body 
of  believers. 

(4)  1.  John  v.  19.  "  We  know  that  we  are  of  God, 
and  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness."  Here  is  the 
same  phraseology  and  in  the  same  epistle  :  what  does  it 
mean  ?  All  men  !  every  individual  of  the  race  !  Why, 
the  first  clause  says  nay,  "  we  know  that  we  are  of 
God:"  and  can  they  be  of  God  and  yet  lie  in  wicked- 
ness! Evidently  therefore,  the  whole  world  here  means, 
the  world  of  unconverted  men — all  the  race,  except  the 
children  of  God  who  have  tasted  of  his  grace.  Now,  if 
it  is  undeniable,  that  the  universal  phrase  whole  world, 
here  means  onlv  the  world  of  unconverted  men  ;  I  want 
to  know  by  what  rule  we  are  bound  to  understand  the 
same  phrase   in  chapter  ii.   2,    as  absolutely  universal. 


TERM,    WORLD,  ANSWERED.  151 

There  exists  as  clear  and  cogent  reasons  for  limiting  it 
there,  to  the  world  of  believers,  as  here,  to  limit  it  to  the 
world  of  unbelievers.  Rev.  iii.  10.  "  I  will  keep  thee 
from  the  hour  of  temptation,  which  shall  come  upon  all 
the  world." 

(5)  Rev.  xii.  9.  "that  old  serpent,  called  the  devil, 
and  Satan,  which  deceiveth  the  whole  world."  Yet,  the 
Bible  tells  us  that  the  devil,  would,  if  it  were  possible, 
deceive  the  very  elect ;  plainly  intimating  that  it  is  not 
possible,  and  this  the  former  text  proves.  God  so  exer- 
cises his  divine  power  and  grace,  that  Satan,  working 
with  all  his  skill,  through  the  emissaries  of  Rome, 
shall  yet  not  succeed  in  deceiving  the  true  church.  The 
whole  world  here  is  the  mass  of  unbelieving  men,  to  the 
exclusion  of  those  who  wondered  not  after  the  beast. 

(6)  Rev,  xiii.  3.  "  all  the  world  wondered  after  the 
beast."  Here,  all  the  world  means  only  the  apostate 
Roman  Catholic  Church — not  all  the  human  race — nor 
even  all  the  world  of  nominal  christians  ;  God  always 
had  a  chosen  generation,  who  never  bowed  the  knee  to 
the  thirty  thousand  Gods  of  pagan  or  of  christian  Rome. 

It  is  surely  unnecessary  to  prosecute  the  investigation. 
The  Greek  term  for  world,  signifies  any  organized  and 
arranged  system,  and  so  it  is  applied  to  the  system  of  a 
lady's  dress.  Peter  says  of  christian  women,  "whose 
adorning,"  (whose  ivorld)  let  it  not  consist  in  external 
arrangements,  but  in  internal  graces.  Even  the  strong 
phrase  whole  world,  does  never  mean  all  men;  but  only 
all  of  the  class  referred  to.  So,  in  the  passage  before 
us,  Jesus  is  the  propitiation,  not  only  for  the  sins  of  us 
Jewish  believers,  but  of  the  whole  world  of  redeemed 
men — the  whole  body  of  the  elect. 

SECTION  II. 

The  arguments  from  the  general  term  all,  stated  and 

answered. 

The  advocates  of  a  general  atonement  build  much 
upon  those  expressions  of  scripture,  where  the  general 
term,  all,  is  applied  to  the  saved.  Let  us  examine  a  few 


252  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

of  the  cases  chiefly  relied  on:  and  let  us  keep  in  view, 
the  rule  of  interpretation,  which  limits  general  terms  by 
the  sense  and  connexion. 

1.  The  passage,  1.  Tim.  n.  4,  6,  is  a  chief  depen- 
dence— "  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth."  Christ  "  gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all."  Hence  it  is  inferred,  that 
Christ  died  equally  for  all  men :  (the  atonement  was 
made  for  all  men.) 

It  is  plain,  that  the  whole  force  of  the  inference  rests 
upon  the  vagueness  of  the  term  all — all  men.  If  this 
does  mean  all  and  every  one  of  the  human  race,  abso- 
lutely; then,  not  only  is  general  atonement,  but  univer- 
sal salvation  also,  true.  The  entire  argument,  ,there- 
fore,  turns  upon  the  single  word  all.  If  all  and  all 
men,  always,  and  every  where  in  the  Bible  does,  and 
must  necessarily,  include  the  entire  race,  we  concede 
the  argument ;  but  if,  as  we  have  seen,  it  never  is  so 
used  in  the  Bible,  or  at  least  very  rarely,  then  no  rea- 
son forbids  our  limiting  it  here  according  to  the  sense 
and  connexion. 

The  Greek  word  for  all,  occurs  more  than  twelve 
hundred  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  therefore  we 
cannot  examine  all  places.  It  occurs  twenty  four  times 
in  1.  Tim.  Now,  if  in  a  majority  of  them,  it  cannot 
possibly  be  understood  in  its  absolutely  universal  sense, 
it  ought  to  relieve  us  from  all  difficulty  with  it  in  this 
argument.  Let  us  then  advert  briefly  to  those  cases  in 
the  twenty-four,  where  the  interpretations  must  be  re- 
stricted. Ch.  t.  16, — "  that  in  me  first,  Jesus  Christ 
might  shew  forth  all  long  suffering."  Will  any  man 
aver  thence,  that  the  totality,  the  whole  of  God's  long 
suffering  was  in  Paul?  Has  Jesus  never  shewn  anv 
long-suffering  in  any  but  Paul  !  Such  is  the  absurdi- 
ty and  the  falsehood,  which  the  general  construction 
would  force  upon  the  Apostle's  language.  What  then 
does  he  mean  ?  Any  child  in  interpretation,  can  tell 
you.  He  means  to  affirm,  that  a  large  measure — a  great 
deal  of  divine  forbearance  had  been  displayed  in  his 
case. 

Ch.  ii.    1.     "I  exhort  therefore,  that  first  of  all,  sup- 


TERM    ALL,  ANSWERED.  253 

plications,  &c.  be  made."  The  first  of  all,  is  connect- 
ed with  the  exhortation — but  if  not,  it  effects  not  the  ar- 
gument. Did  Paul  mean  that  the  first  thing  of  all  in 
the  universe,  that  should  be  done,  should  be  to  pray  for 
all  ?  The  persons  addressed  must  not  bend  the  knee — 
they  must  not  meet  for  prayer,  they  must  not  eat,  or 
sleep  or  stand  or  walk  or  breathe,  until  they  prayed  for 
all!  Nay,  but  the  plain  meaning  is,  that  in  a  very  special 
manner,  and  very  largely,  christians  should  pray. 

Ch.  ii,  1.  "  prayers,  &c.  for  all  men."  Does  he 
mean  here  that  we  shall  pray  for  the  dead?  for  the 
damned!  for  those  of  whom  John  says,  "  there  is  a  sin 
unto  death,  I  do  not  say  that  he  shall  pray  for  it!"  for 
those  of  whom  Jesus  says,  "I  pray  not  for  the  world!!" 
To  assert  that  all,  here,  includes  the  whole  race  of  men 
absolutely,  is  to  affirm  what  Jesus,  and  John  his  ser- 
vant, and  the  general  current  of  scripture  denies. 
What  then  does  the  Apostle  mean  by  all  men  ?  Lei 
himself  answer.  "For  kings  and  for  all  that  are  in  au- 
thority, <fcc."  In  those  times  of  persecution,  the  saints 
might  be  tempted  to  invoke  curses  upon  their  enemies. 
By  no  means,  says  the  Apostle,  wicked  and  unreasona- 
ble as  they  are,  pray  for  all  descriptions  of  men.  Ch. 
ii,  2,  "  for  all  that  are  in  authority."  Here  the  general 
term  all  is  limited  to  persons  in  office,  exercising  pow- 
er. 

Ch.  ii,  2,  "in  all  godliness  and  honesty."  Surely  it 
was  far  from  the  Apostle's  mind  to  intimate  that  those 
to  whom  he  addresses  himself,  had  the  sum  total — all 
godliness  and  honesty  treasured  up  in  themselves  !  Nay, 
but  that  godliness  and  honesty,  to  a  large  extent  may  be 
manifested  in  and  by  them. 

Ch.  ii.  8.  "  I  will,  therefore,  that  men  pray  everj 
where"  [Greek,  in  all  place.]  Does  he  mean  all,  ab- 
solutely ?  Must  men  pray  in  all  places  !  Then  they 
must  be  in  all  places  !  The  injunction  cannot  be  com- 
plied with  until  men  possess  ubiquity  !  How  then  ? 
Manifestly,  in  every  place  where  their  lot  may  be  cast. 

Ch.  ii.  11.  "Let  the  woman  learn  in  silence  with  all 
subjection."  Does  Paul  teach  that  female  submission 
has  no  limit? — that  she  must  be  subject  to  all  men  and 
22 


254  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

in  all  degrees  !  Preposterous  absurdity  !  What  then  ? 
Whv  a  woman  must  submit  to  her  own  husband  in  all 
things  lawful  and  right. 

Ch.  in.  4,  "  having  his  children  in  subjection  with 
all  gravity."  Can  any  one  man  or  set  of  men,  possess 
all  gravity — so  that  there  shall  be  no  grave  deportment 
with  any  besides  ! 

Ch.  hi.  11,— "women — deacons  wives,  are  to  "  be 
grave,  not  slanderers,  sober,  faithful  in  all  things." 
Are  all  things  absolutely  obligatory  upon  deacons 
wives?  Must  they  do  all  the  things  of  the  world  ?  Nay, 
but  all  the  things  that  lie  within  their  proper  province. 
They  could  not  possibly  be  faithful,  if  they  meddled 
with  all  things  absolutely. 

Ch.  iv.  4 — "  For  every  creature  of  God  is  good." 
Here  the  Greek  word  is  the  same.  But  is  it  true 
in  the  universal  sense?  Is  the  devil  good,  if  his  visits 
be  received  with  thanksgivings  ?  Manifestly  every  crea- 
ture is  to  be  limited  to  the  eatables  of  which  the  Apos- 
tle is  speaking  in  the  place. 

Ch.  iv,  8 — "  godliness  is  profitable  unto  all  things" 
— all  stales  and  conditions  of  men.  Is  it  so?  Is  godli- 
ness profitable  to  the  ungodly  who  have  it  not  ?  Is  god- 
liness profitable  to  the  possessor  in  all  things,  when  it 
occasions  his  persecution  and  death  ?  Nay,  but  it  is 
profitable  unto  all  the  things  referred  to. 

Ch.  iv,  15 — "  that  thy  profiting  may  appear  unto  all" 
— or  may  appear  in  all  things.  What  ?  In  all  and 
every  thing?  or  in  all  the  things  in  which  he  laboured  ? 
Meditate  upon  these  things — give  thyself  wholly  to 
them  ;  that  thy  profiting  in  them  all,  may  appear. 
Manifestly,  the  all,  here,  is  limited  by  the  things  spo- 
ken of. 

Ch.  v,  ii — "Entreat  the  elder  women  as  mothers, 
the  younger  as  sisters,  with  all  purity."  Is  there  to 
be  no  purity  but  with  Timothy  :  must  the  term  all  be 
taken  in  its  universal  sense  ?  This  were  to  make  the 
passage  nonsense. 

Ch.  v.  10 — "  If  she  have  diligently  followed  every 
good  work."  Here  to  insist  on  the  absolute  universal- 
ity of  the  term,  is  to  make  all  the  good  works  in  the 


fKRM    ALL,  ANSWERED.  255 

universe,  the  objects  of  actual  pursuit  of  every  good 
woman. 

Ch.  v,  20 — "them  that  sin  rebuke  before  a//"— 
Does  the  all  here  mean  all  universally  ?  Or  does  the 
Apostle  merely  insist,  that  offenders  shall  be  publicly 
reproved — that  is  reproved  before  a  great  number — the 
whole  congregation? 

Ch.  vi,  1 — "  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the 
yoke,  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honour." 
Can  any  man  believe  that  Paul's  design  here,  is  to  make 
a  God  of  the  master  and  an  idolater  of  his  servant  ?  Is 
the  servant  to  account  no  being  but  his  own  master 
worthy  of  honour?  Or  does  he  intend  only  to  urge  ser- 
vants to  bestow  upon  their  masters  all  due  honour, 
and  to  kings  and  the  Lord  of  kings,  still  higher  honour; 
— "  fear  God,  honour  the  king."  No  man  can  believe 
that  all,  here,  is  to  be  taken  in  its  universal  meaning. 

Ch.  vi,  10 — "the  love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all 
<evil."  Is  it  true  in  the  broadest  sense  ?  Was  it  the 
love  of  money  that  "brought  death  into  the  world,  and  all 
our  woe  ?"  And  was  not  the  first  sin  an  evil  ?  It  is  folly 
to  force  all  the  vices  in  the  world  into  one.  There  are 
evil  passions  not  a  few,  where  there  is  the  utmost  con- 
tempt for  money.  In  faet,  it  is  but  a  small  portion  of 
the  ills  that  flesh  is  heir  to,  that  can  fairly  be  imputed  to 
the  love  of  money,  and  referred  to  that  passion  as  their 
root.  This  phrase  of  the  Apostle,  has  been  extensive- 
ly misunderstood,  and  great  violence  has  been  done  to 
common  sense  and  the  context,  in  efforts  to  make  the 
love  of  money  the  only  original  vice  in  the  universe  or 
at  least  in  our  world.  I  think,  Harris's  Mammon,  con- 
tains some  instances  of  this  monomania.  The  truth  is, 
the  Apostle  does  not  at  all  say  that  the  love  of  money  is 
the  root  of  all  evil.  A  very  slight  defect  in  the  transla- 
tion, has  occasioned  this  forced  work  among  interpre- 
ters. Paul  says,  they  who  desire  to  be  rich,  are  there- 
by liable  to  some  peculiar  dangers — he  does  not  say  all. 
"  They  fall  into  temptation."  Some  English  bibles, 
as  Woodward's  Scott,  have  it  temptations — incor- 
rectly. They  fall  "  into  a  snare,"  this  is  another  evil. 
They  fall  into  "  many  foolish  and  hurtful  lusts."  These 


256  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

also  are  evils,  but  they  are  not  all,  and  Paul  does  not 
say  they  are  all  evils  and  all  lusts.  He  then  adds, 
"  For  the  love  of  silver  is  the  root  of  all  these  evils." 
Nay  he  does  not  even  say  the  love  of  silver,  is  the  root 
of  all,  as  if  they  had  no  other  root,  but  only  that  "  the 
love  of  money  is  a  root  of  all  these  evils,"  viz  :  the 
evils  just  referred  to.  Thus  the  general  term  is  limited 
by  the  connexion,  according  to  common  sense. 

Ch.  vi.  13 — "I  give  thee  charge  before  God,  who 
quickeneth  all  things."  Will  any  man,  however  mad 
upon  establishing  the  starting  point  of  the  Pelegian 
heresy,  aver  that  the  term  all  here,  must  be  taken  uni- 
versally ?  Will  he  say  that  God  quickeneth ;  that  is, 
giveth  life  unto  things  that  have  no  life!  Or  will  it  be 
admitted,  that  He  quickens  or  gives  life  to  all  that 
live  ?  The  universal  term  is  limited  and  mustjjue  limited 
by  the  rule  under  which  we  act. 

Ch.  vi.  17 — "God  giveth  us  richly,  all  things  to  en- 
jo}'."  Does  any  man  enjoy  all  things  absolutely;  or 
only  a  small  portion  of  the  universal  sum  of  things  ? 
viz:  all  the  things  which  he  possesses  and  uses?  To 
assert  the  former  is  sheer  folly  ;  the  latter,  therefore,  is 
the  true  construction. 

Thus,  in  nineteen  cases  out  of  the  twenty-four,  there 
is  no  reasonable  ground  to  hesitate  ;  there  is,  in  fact,  no 
possibility  of  giving  a  rational  exposition  to  the  pas- 
sages, Avithout  restricting  the  general  term  all  and  bring- 
ing it  within  the  scope  of  the  context.  Should  we  run 
over  the  whole  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  cases  of  the 
New  Testament,  I  doubt  not,  we  would  find  a  simi- 
lar proportion  of  unequivocal  limitations.  It  may,  per- 
haps, appear  to  the  reader,  that  we  have  been  tedious 
already.  Let  him  remember,  that  here  is  the  salient 
point  of,  at  least  a  majority,  of  the  errors,  that  have  in 
modern  times  distracted  the  church.  Consequently, 
this  is  the  very  point  at  which  wisdom  dictates,  we 
should  exercise  patience  in  our  investigation.  Two  of 
the  remaining  cases  are  identical,  viz  :  Ch.  I.  15,  and 
iv,  9.  "  This  is  a  faithful  saying  and  worthy  of  all  ac- 
ceptation, that  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
ners, &c."    If  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  means  worthy 


TERM    ALL,  ANSWERED.  257 

to  be  accepted  by  all,  then  the  all  must  be  all  sinners, 
yea,  all  mankind  sinners,  at  the  very  best.  For, 
that  devils  should  accept  a  saying  which  is  not  proffer- 
ed to  them,  cannot  be  supposed.  The  general  term 
must  therefore  be  limited  to  men  at  least. 

There  remain  but  the  three  cases  which  are  involved 
in  the  point  at  issue,  viz  :  Ch.  n.  4,  6,  and  4,  10.     As 
to  the  last,   I  have  already  presented  one  view  of  it. 
Should  that  exposition  not  prove  satisfactory,  I  fallback 
upon  another,  viz  :  He  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  who 
are  saved,  and  especially  of  faithful  saints.     He  extends 
peculiar  care  over  those  who  are  peculiarly  faithful  to 
him.     To  affirm  that  he  is  the  Saviour,  in  a  spiritual 
sense,  of  those  who  shall  go  away  into  eternal  fire,  is 
surely  to  speak  contradictions.     The  former  view   is, 
however,  I  think,  the  true  and  correct  one.     The  living 
God,  not  Jesus  Christ,  but  the  sovereign  Lord  and  Father, 
is  the  Saviour — the  preserver — he  supports  and  feeds  all 
men — particularly,    his  believing  people.      So    is    the 
word  Saviour  applied  in  this  general  sense.     Othniel,  in 
Judges,  in,  9,  is  called   a  deliverer — a  Saviour.     And 
2  Kings,  xiii,  5,  "  the  Lord  gave  Israel  a  Saviour,  so 
that  they  went  out  from  under  the  hand  of  the  Syrians. " 
And    Neh.   ix,  27,  "thou  gavest   them  saviours  who 
saved  them  out  of  the  hand  of  their  enemies."     Thus 
only  is  God  the  Saviour  of  all  men.     He  delivers  them 
from  many  evils — it  is  a  temporal,  not  a  spiritual  salva- 
tion, and  therefore,  the   scriptures   which   speak  of  it, 
have  nothing  to  do  with  this  controversy. 

Therefore,  the  two  texts  only  remain.  Ch.  ii,  4,  6. 
Now  what  reason  can  exist  to  force  us  to  take  the  gene- 
ral term  in  these  two  instances,  in  its  most  extended 
sense,  when  in  twenty-one  out  of  twenty-four  times,  in 
this  epistle,  it  must  be,  and  is  restricted?  Why  shall 
the  law  of  construction  be  set  aside  here? 

If  this  is  most  unreasonable,  then  the  enquiry  will  be 
as  to  the  restriction — what  is  it,  and  wherefore  its  ne- 
cessity? I  answer  the  context  and  the  sense  must 
limit. 

Now,  in  the  preceeding,  the  term  all  is  by  necessity 
limited  in  all  the  former  instances.     The  all  men  of  the 
22* 


258  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

first  verse,  are  expounded  in  the  second,  to  mean  men  of 
all  classes,  conditions  and  characters ;  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  the  restricted  views  of  the  Jews,  who  seemed  of- 
ten disposed  to  deny  salvation  to  many  classes  of  men. 
On  the  contrary,  Paul  insists,  that  the  gospel  is  no  re- 
specter of  persons  ;  but  all  classes  and  conditions  of  men 
are  freely  urged  to  accept  it,  for  it  is  God's  will  that  no 
distinction  shall  be  made  in  the  gospel  offer.  All  classes 
of  men — kings,  however  far  they  may  have  erred  in  per- 
secuting the  church — subordinate  rulers — all  are  invited. 
The  all  of  the  4th  is  the  same  as  the  all  of  the  1st  verse 
— all  kinds  and  degrees  of  men. 

But  further,  the  sense  restricts  the  general  term.  If 
by  "  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,"  is  meant,  a  positive 
determination  on  the  part  of  God  ;  then  it  must  even  be 
so,  and  all  must  be  saved  :  or  if  not,  God  has  failed  of 
his  purpose  ;  which  to  affirm  is  blasphemy.  If  all  men 
absolutely  be  not  saved,  then  it  could  not  be  God's  will, 
his  fixed  determination  that  they  should  be  saved,  all 
and  every  one.  If  by,  "  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved" 
is  meant,  that  God  wills  absolutely  to  save  men  of  all 
descriptions,  nations  and  languages,  then  his  purpose  is 
and  shall  be  accomplished.  And  thus  the  sense  unites 
with  the  connexion  in  defining  the  extent  of  the  all  men. 

So  exactly  in  the  6th  verse,  where  the  very  same  all 
are  spoken  of — viz  :  all  the  people  of  God — all  that  will 
ever  see  his  face  in  peace — all  his  sheep  for  whom  he 
pravs — not  the  world  of  whom  he  says  "  I  pray  not  for 
the  world" — but  all  his  redeemed  ones — all  whom  he 
ransomed,  by  his  precious  blood — all  whom  the  Father 
srave  to  him — all  kinds  and  classes  of  men  to  whom  he 
will  say,  "come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father." 

2.  Peter  iii.  9.  "The  Lord  is  long  suffering  to  us 
ward,  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all 
should  come  to  repentance."  Hence  it  is  argued,  that, 
as  repentance  is  connected  with  salvation  and  the  atone- 
ment, Christ  died  for  all,  or  he  could  not  will,  that  all 
should  repent  and  be  saved. 

Dr.  Owen's  response  to  this  is  so  brief  and  conclu- 
sive, I  shall  do  little  more  than  simply  transcribe  it. 
After  alluding  to  the  rule  of  restriction,  he  proceeds, 


TERM    ALL,  ANSWERED.  259 

M  See  then  of  whom  the  Apostle  is  here  speaking. 
The  Lord,  (saith  he)  is  long-suffering  to  us  ward,  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish  :  will  not  common  sense 
teach  us,  that  {lis)  is  to  be  repeated  in  both  the  follow- 
ing clauses,  to  make  them  up  complete  and  full  ?  viz  : 
not  willing  that  any  of  us  should  perish,  but  that  all  of 
us  should  come  to  repentance  1  Now,  who  are  these  of 
whom  the  Apostle  speaks,  to  whom  he  writes  ?  Such  as 
had  received  great  and  precious  promises,  chap.  i.  4  ; 
whom  he  calls  beloved,  chap.  iii.  1.8;  whom  he  op- 
poseth  to  the  scoffers  of  the  last  days,  verse  3  ;  to  whom 
the  Lord  hath  respect  in  the  disposal  of  these  days  ;  who 
are  said  to  be  elect,  Matt.  xxiv.  22.  Now,  truly  to  argue, 
that  because  God  would  have  none  of  those  to  perish, 
but  all  of  them  to  come  to  repentance,  therefore,  he  hath 
the  same  will  and  mind  towards  all  and  every  one  in  the 
world  (even  those  to  whom  he  never  makes  known  his 
will,  nor  ever  calls  to  repentance,  and  never  once  hear 
of  his  way  of  salvation)  comes  not  much  short  of  ex- 
treme madness  and  folly."  Owen  on  Redem.  p.  270. 

God  wills,  that  all  of  us,  who  shall  see  his  face  in 
peace,  and  live  and  reign  with  him  in  everlasting  life, 
should  come  to  repentance ;  therefore,  all  who  shall  pine 
away  eternally  in  the  land  of  regrets  and  endless  death, 
he  wills  also  should  come  to  repentance !  Because  he 
wills  the  salvation  of  his  people,  therefore,  he  wills  the 
salvation  of  the  lost  also  !  Such  is  the  reasoning  by 
which  general  atonement  is  supported. 

Heb.  ii.  9.  "  But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  lit- 
tle [for  a  little  time]  lower  than  the  angels,  for  the  suf- 
fering of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honour:  that  he 
by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for  every  man." 
Hence,  it  is  inferred  that,  as  tasting  death  means  suf- 
fering death,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  for  all  men  in 
general — the  atonement  is  universal.  But,  says  the 
universalist,  if  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  universal — 
for  all  men  equally — then  all  are  saved. 

Here  again,  the  universalist  is  the  sound  logician ; 
his  argument,  granting  him  the  premises,  is  unanswer- 
able. But  now,  I  deny  the  premises.  Every  man  here 
cannot  and  does  not  include  all  absolutely  ;  but  only  all 


260  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

of  whom  the  Apostle  is  speaking  in  the  context.  And, 
1.  Man  is  supplied  by  the  translators.  It  is  not  in 
the  original — "should  taste  death  for  every" — every 
what?  Doubtless,  the  ellipsis  is  to  be  filled  up,  with 
such  word  as  includes  or  expresses  the  persons  of  whom 
the  Apostle  speaks — every  what  ?  Who  are  they  to 
whom  he  refers  ?  Whom  he  names  ?  Are  they  the  un- 
godly, and  unbelieving,  and  finally  impenitent  ?  By  no 
means  ;  for  in  the  next  sentence  he  speaks  of  them  as 
sons — "  in  bringing  many  sons  unto  glory."  He  speaks 
of  them  as  the  trained  band  to  which  Christ  is  the  Cap- 
tain of  their  salvation.  And  this  term  Captain — the 
Greek  word,  means  the  leader  of  the  way — representing 
Christ  as  leading  the  company  of  God's  sons,  and  lead- 
ing them  in  the  way  of  salvation.  Manifestly,  then  it 
is  for  every  son  of  God  he  should  taste  death — not  for 
every  son  of  perdition. 

Again,  in  v.  11,  he  calls  them  brethren,  and  affirms 
their  unity  with  himself,  and  speaks  of  them  as  his  sanc- 
tified ones.  "  For  both  he  that  sanctifieth,  and  they  who 
are  sanctified,  are  all  of  one ;  for  which  cause  he  is  not 
ashamed  to  call  them  brethren."  And  then  repeatedly 
again,  calls  them  children — children  given  to  him  by  the 
Father.  "  Behold  I  and  the  children  which  God  hath 
given  me."  And  in  v.  15,  he  affirms  that  he  delivers 
them  who,  "through  fear  of  death,  were  all  their  lifetime 
subject  to  bondage."  Does  Christ  actually  deliver  from 
the  fear  of  death,  all  men  universally  ?  Clearly  then,  in- 
asmuch as  the  Apostle  does  not  at  all,  in  the  context  any- 
where, speak  of  all  men  absolutely  and  indefinitely  ;  but 
only  of  the  sons  of  God,  the  brethren  of  Christ,  the 
united  with  him,  the  sanctified,  the  children,  the  per- 
sons given  to  him  by  God  ;  we  cannot,  without  such 
violence  as  destroys  all  the  precision  of  language,  stretch 
ihe  general  term  all,  to  cover  any  thing  more  than  "all 
the  sons  of  God" — "  all  which  the  Father  hath  given 
me."  Christ  was  humbled,  "that  he  by  the  grace  of 
God  should  taste  death  for  every  so??." 

2.  On  the  ground  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement  we 
arrive  at  the  same  conclusion.  To  taste  death,  is  to  suf- 
fer it — to  die.     And  as  Christ's  death  was  vicarious  and 


TERM  ALL,  ANSWERED.  261 

made  a  complete  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  ;  hence, 
every  man  for  whom  this  satisfaction  is  rendered  must, 
injustice,  be  delivered  from  death:  consequently,  the 
salvation  is  co-extensive  with  the  satisfaction.  But  of 
this  enough. 

3.  The  Hebrews  were  contracted  in  their  views,  and 
wished  to  exclude  all  but  their  own  nation  from  the  ben- 
efits of  his  death  :  hence,  these  strong  general  expres- 
sions ;  as  we  have  before  remarked.  Every  son  of  God, 
of  whatever  nation,  tribe  or  people,  is  included  in  the 
compass  of  Christ's  death. 

4.  Similar  uses  of  the  general  phrase  occur,  Col.  i. 
28.  "  Whom  we  preach,  warning  every  man  and  teach- 
ing every  man  in  all  wisdom."  Surely,  Paul  does  not 
assert  so  great  an  absurdity,  as  that  he  had  warned  every 
man — had  taught  every  man — each  and  all  the  human 
race  ;  and  that  too  in  all  wisdom — communicated  all  wis- 
dom and  made  the  whole  race  omniscient !  But  such 
must  be  the  meaning,  if  the  universal  construction  con- 
tended for  by  the  general  atonement-men,  be  correct. 
The  ineffable  absurdity  of  the  conclusion  shews  the  rot- 
tenness of  the  premises.  Whom  then  did  he  warn  and 
teach?  Obviously,  every  man  that  came  before  him. 
What  is  the  all-wisdoml  What,  but  all  that  he  could 
communicate  for  the  time  and  opportunities  he  had. 

1.  Cor.  xv.  22.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." 

Many  advocates,  of  some  kind  of  indefinite  or  general 
atonement,  less  skilfull  than  zealous,  have  used  this  pas- 
sage as  an  argument  in  their  favour.  A  most  unhappy 
selection.     They  lean  upon  the  point  of  a  sword.     For, 

1.  The  Apostle  is  speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  from  natural  death  ;  not  of  the  soul  from  spiritual 
death.  Consequently,  nothing  can  with  safety  and  fair- 
ness, be  inferred  from  the  passage,  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  atonement.  "  But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the 
dead,  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept.  For, 
since  by  man  [the  first  Adam]  came  death,  by  man 
[Christ,  the  second  Adam]  came  also  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead."  The  sin  of  the  first  Adam  rendered  it  neces- 
sary, according  to  the  nature  of  that  moral  government 


262  ARGUMENTS  FROM  THE 

under  which  he  was  placed,  that  all  men  should  descend 
to  the  grave.  The  righteousness  and  atonement  of  the 
second  Adam,  rendered  it  necessary  that  all  men  should 
rise  from  the  grave.  And  the  reason  of  this  moral  ne- 
cessity it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive.  The  death  of  the 
body  is  included  in  the  penalty — the  body  is  dead  be- 
cause of  sin  :  but  now  the  entire  persons  must  be  judged 
and  punished  or  rewarded  ;  and  therefore,  must  the  souls 
and  bodies  be  again  united.  But  the  right,  and  office 
duty,  of  the  second  Adam,  it  is  to  judge  the  world,  hence, 
his  power  it  is,  that  must  arrest  and  bring  before  his 
own  dread  tribunal,  all  who  are  to  be  by  him  judged. 
Hence, 

■"  lo,  a  mighty  trump,  one-half  concealed, 


"  In  clouds,  one-half  to  mortal  eye  revealed, 
•'  Shall  pour  a  dreadful  note  ;  the  piercing  call 
"  Shall  rattle  in  the  centre  of  the  ball ; 
"  The  'extended  circuit  of  creation  shake, 
[       "  The  living  die  with  fear,  the  dead  awake." 

This  belongs  to  Christ  as  Mediator,  but  it  is  not  a 
part  of  his  work  of  saving  men.  It  is  an  adjunct  of  his 
sovereignty  as  judge.  It  is  not  as  redeemer  he  raises 
them  from  the  dead,  but  as  judge,  whose  it  is,  to  do  jus- 
tice— pure,  simple,  naked  justice.  The  resurrection  of 
the  dead  is  not  in  itself  a  blessing.  Its  being  a  blessing 
or  a  curse,  depends  upon  the  moral  character  of  the 
raised,  and  their  legal  relations.  It  is  divine  justice  and 
not  mercy,  that  demands  them  to  arise.  Justice  de- 
mands that  the  saints  shall  rise  to  life  everlasting  :  the 
same  justice  requires  that  the  unsanctified  shall  rise  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  But  its  exercise  by 
Christ,  or  the  ri  jht  to  exercise  it,  depends  upon  his  per- 
fect fulfilment  of  all  law.  Having  fulfilled  all  law,  he 
must  himself  rise  and  being  henceforth  invested  with  all 
power,  he  must  exercise  that  power  in  the  office  of  final 
judgement.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive."  The  burial  is  by  Adam,  the 
resurrection  is  by  Christ.  Then  the  Apostle  proceeds 
to  mark  the  difference  amongst  the  raised.  "But  every 
man  in  his  own  order — his  own  rank — Christ  the  first 
fruits  ;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming," 


TERM  ALL,  ANSWERED.  263 

He  says  nothing  at  all  of  the  other  class  ;  viz  :  the  wick- 
ed, in  this  whole  discourse:  and  it  may  well  be  ques- 
tioned whether  the  all  is  any  more  extensive  than  the 
order  mentioned,  viz  :  the  saints,  who  shall  shout,  "  O 
death  where  is  thy  sting,  O  grave  where  is  thy  victory!" 
44  thanks  be  to  God  which  giveth  us  the  victory" — us  ? 
whom  ?  Believers,  unquestionably.  Not  a  word  is  ut- 
tered about  the  resurrection  of  unbelievers  in  the  whole 
chapter.  All  God's  people  sunk  to  the  ground  by 
Adam,  so  did  "  the  children  of  the  wicked  one  :"  all 
God's  people  are  delivered  from  the  grave  by  Christ, 
so  are  the  children  of  Satan,  but  that  is  not  a  truth  here 
distinctly  affirmed. 

2.  But  supposing  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle  to  be,  as 
the  argument  for  general  atonement  here  assmes  it ; 
that  is,  suppose  the  Apostle  to  speak  of  spiritual  death 
and  spiritual  resurrection  :  the  passage  then  becomes  still 
more  fatal  to  the  indefinite  scheme.  For  it  is  a  compar- 
ison of  manner  solely.  That  is,  the  manner  of  all  dy- 
ing in  Adam,  is  the  same  precisely,  as  the  manner  of  all 
being  made  alive  in  Christ.  As — even  so.  The  pre- 
cise point  therefore,  which  the  text  presents  for  our  con- 
sideration, is,  How  did  all  die  in  Adam  ?  How  are  all 
made  alive  in  Christ?  Do  these  agree  ?  Is  the  mode  of 
death  and  of  life  the  same  ?  This  last  question  is  affirm- 
ed in  the  text.  We  have  only  to  enquire  what  is  that 
manner  ?  How  did  all  die  in  Adam  ?  We  ask  the  advo- 
cates of  general  atonement,  how  ?  And  we  can  conceive 
of  but  one  reasonable  answer — All  died  in  Adamfeder- 
atively — legally — he  was  their  moral  head,  and  his  sin 
brought  death  upon  all  whom  he  represented — "  by  one 
man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one — by  the  offence  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all."  (Rom.  v.  18,  19.)  The 
question  reverts;  how  are  all  made  alive  in  Christ? 
How  ?  In  precisely  the  same  manner,  viz  ifederatively. 
legally,  he  was  their  moral  head,  and  his  righteousness 
brought  life  upon  all  of  whom  he  is  head — "  by  the  obe- 
dience of  one,  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  Who 
are  they  that  are  dead  in  Adam  ?  Ml  whom  he  repre- 
sented— all  his  children — all  that  actually  died.  Who 
are  made  alive  in  Christ  ?  All  whom  he  represented — all 


264  ARGUMENTS   FROM  THE 

his  children — all  that  are  actually  made  alive.  The  mode 
of  death  and  of  life  is  the  same :  the  extent  of  each 
is  dependent  upon  the  representative  character  of  each, 
as  we  have  before  seen.  Now,  the  extent  of  the  dying 
and  of  the  making  alive  are  determined  in  the  covenants 
of  works  and  of  grace  respectively,  which  as  to  num- 
bers, are  known  only  to  God ;  but  he  has  revealed  to  us 
the  absolute  universality  of  it  under  the  first  covenant ; 
as  to  the  second,  the  fact  only  reveals  the  knowledge  of 
it  to  us.  Whenever  we  have  evidence  that  a  sinner  is 
born  of  God,  we  know  that  he  is  made  alive  in  Christ, 
and  therefore  was  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and 
was  represented  by  the  great  Surety.  Unless  therefore, 
absolute  universality  of  salvation  is  maintained — unless 
all  men  universally  are  made  alive  and  so  saved,  we  are 
thrown  back  upon  the  restriction  of  the  general  term  to 
the  people  of  God  :  all  Christ's  people  are  made  alive  in 
him,  just  as  all  Adam's  people  are  made  dead  in  him. 

But  we  must  dismiss  this  branch  of  the  subject.  Other 
texts  there  are,  of  a  similar  kind  and  similarly  used. 
These  are  reputed  by  the  friends  of  general  atonement 
the  strongest.  All  the  others  are  to  be  expounded  in 
the  same  way ;  we  therefore,  leave  them  to  the  discre- 
tion of  the  reader. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE     OBJECTION    AGAINST     STRICT,  LIMITED    ATONEMENT, 

FOUNDED  ON  THE  GENERAL  GOSPEL  CALL,  STATED 

AND    REFUTED. 

Against  the  doctrine  of  a  real,  proper  vicarious  satis- 
faction for  sin — a  satisfaction  rendered  to  divine  justice 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  for  and  on  behalf  of  his  own  peo- 
ple whose  sins,  and  theirs  only  he  bore  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree,  it  has  been  urged  as  an  objection,  that  this 
doctrine  ties  the  tongue  of  the  gospel  minister.  He  can- 
not offer  salvation  to  all  men.  He  cannot  urge  all  men 
every  where  to  repentance  and  faith.  He  cannot  invite 
all  men  to  come,  and  assure  them  there  is  yet  room. 

He  cannot  promise  salvation  to  all  men  as  a  ground  of 
their  encouragement  to  come  to  Christ.  For  this  would 
be  to  promise  salvation  to  the  lost ;  for  whom  Christ  did 
not  die.  It  were  to  invite,  to  a  feast  many  for  whom  no 
seat  had  been  provided,  and  no  feast  prepared.  For,  to 
offer  salvation  to  those  whose  sin  is  not  atoned  for  and 
who  therefore  cannot  be  saved,  i.s  to  mock  and  tantalize; 
a  conduct  unworthy  of  a  kind  and  gracious  God  ;  and 
unfitting  for  the  messengers  of  mercy. 

On  the  other  hand,  say  the  friends  of  the  indefinite 
atonement  scheme,  the  atonement  is  for  all — Christ  died 
for  all;  the  gospel  is  therefore  offered  to  all  and  if  all  come 
they  will  be  saved ;  they  who  will  not  come  will  not  be 
saved.  Thus  God  is  honest  and  sincere  in  his  offers  of 
mercy  to  all  men  :  and  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving, 
are  cut  off  for  their  unbelief  and  impenitence. 

Such,  for  substance  is  this  objection.  In  reply,  let 
me  remark. 

1.  That  the  advocates  of  a  real  and  strict  atonement, 
feel  any  difficulty — that  they   are  trammelled  in  their 
presentation  of  the  gospel  call,  is  not  true  in  point  of 
fact.     I  have  had  occasion  many  thousand  times  to   in- 
23 


266  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED 

vite  and  entreat  and  command  men  everywhere  (i.  e. 
wherever  I  have  preached)  to  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel.  I  have  heard  very  many  of  the  same  belief  with 
myself,  urging  the  gospel  call,  with  all  possible  zeal ; 
pressing  men  to  believe,  repent  and  be  saved :  assuring 
them  in  the  strongest  language  that  every  penitent  be- 
liever shall  most  certainly  be  saved.  But  never  did  I 
feel  any  difficulty,  and  I  am  confident  no  intelligent  Cal- 
vinist  ever  feels  any  such  difficulty. 

Here  then,  is  a  matter  of  fact  answer,  to  the  objec- 
tion before  us.  It  is  something  worse  than  in  vain,  to 
tell  a  man  he  cannot  do,  the  very  thing  he  is  in  the  con- 
stant habit  of  doing  All  Calvinists  are  in  the  constant 
practice  of  commanding  all  sinners  to  whom  they  preach, 
to  repent,  and  assuring  them  that  every  penitent  believer 
shall  be  saved ;  and  yet  the  objector,  says,  you  cannot 
do  it !  We  do,  do  it.  We  always  do  it.  What,  worse 
than  folly  to  say,  we  cannot  do  it ! 

This  might  be  sufficient  answer  to  the  objector,  if  the 
only  object  was  to  shut  him  up.  But  radical  error  lies 
couched  in  the  objection  and  for  the  truth's  sake, 
therefore,  we  must  give  a  more  extended  reply. 

2.  The  entire  Armenian  or  Semi-pelagian  scheme  i^ 
wrapped  up  in  this  objection.  It  supposes  that  Christ's 
death  has  opened  a  door  by  which  men — all  men  of 
Adam's  race  may  be  saved  if  they  choose  :  and  it  sup- 
poses the  doctrine  of  ability  in  man,  independent  of  re- 
newing grace,  to  turn  himself  and  choose  the  Saviour. 
All  men  are  alike  able  to  repent  and  believe  and  the  only 
reason  they  are  not  all  saved  is,  some  choose  to  be  saved 
and  some  do  not.  Human  volition,  and  not  divine 
grace,  determines  the  question  of  heaven  or  hell.  Sal- 
vation is  offered  to  all  and  promised  conditionally  to  all. 
They  who  fulfil  the  condition,  that  is,  who  convert  them- 
selves by  free  will — that  is,  who  do  the  work — are  sav- 
ed, and  the  rest  perish.  Thus  salvation  is  by  human 
works   and  not  divine  grace. 

But  now  the  bible  doctrine  is,  that  every  penitent  be- 
liever — every  one  that  is  willing,  is  saved ;  but  more- 
over, that  this  willingness  and  this  penitence  and  this 
faith  are  not  human  works,  but  divine  graces,  inwrought 


GENERAL  GOSPEL  CALL.  267 

in  the  soul  by  the  regenerating  Spirit  of  God — they 
"  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  (John  i.  13.)  The 
will  itself  is  renovated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  i.  e.  The 
man  who  was  unwilling  is  made  willing,  by  the  divine 
Spirit.  This  being  the  truth,  in  opposition  to  the  pre- 
ceding error,  we  are  prepared  to  point  out  another  fal- 
acy,  viz. 

3.  That  the  gospel  call  is  a  promise  of  salvation  to 
every  individual  to  whom  the  preacher  has  access. 
This  I  conceive  to  be  an  utter  mistake.     For, 

(1)  The  gospel  call  is  a  commandment.  It  emanates 
from  the  supreme  Lord  of  the  universe,  as  such.  It 
does  not,  in  this  aspect  of  it,  issue  from  Jesus  as  Sa- 
viour, but  as  Governor.  His  giving  this  command — 
his  ordering  his  disobedient  subjects  to  return  into  due 
subjection,  belongs  to  him  as  King.  In  this  he  is  ex- 
ercising his  authority  and  all  men  are  bound  to  obey 
him.  For  it  is  the  duty,  and  it  ever  must  be  the  duty  of 
every  rational  being,  in  heaven  earth  and  hell,  to  obey 
God.  From  this  obligation  no  amount  of  sinfulness  or  of 
holiness  ever  can  release  any  creature.  None  can  rise 
above  God's  authority — none  can  sink  below  it.  Now, 
in  the  gospel  call,  is  included  this  command.  Into  this 
revolted  province  of  his  empire,  God  has  sent  his  Son, 
invested  with  full  powers,  to  command  submission,  and 
to  demand  the  fruits  of  his  vineyard.  It  is  the  supreme 
authority  of  heaven  that  meets  us  in  the  command,  "  re- 
pent ye"  rebels  and  believe  the  gospel.  Submit  to  your 
King  and  Lord.  Turn  from  your  evil  ways.  Let  the 
wicked  forsake  his  way— and  the  unrighteous  man  his 
thoughts.  Turn  ye — turn  ye.  Seek  the  Lord — Call 
ye  upon  him.  Depart  ye,  depart  ye — go  ye  out  from 
the  midst  of  her  and  touch  not  the  unclean  thing.  The 
gospel  call  is  mandatory — it  comes  with  all  the  weight 
of  divine  authority.  If  any  man  treat  it  with  contempt, 
it  is  at  the  peril  of  his  immortal  soul. 

If  it  were  not  so — that  is,  if  the  gospel  call  were  not 
a  command,  based  on  authority — the  authority  of  the 
Universal  Governor,  manifestly  there  could  be  no  sin  in 
disobeying  it.     Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law.    But 


268  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED 

now  impenitence  and  unbelief  are  sins,  and  therefore 
transgressions  of  the  law,  and  therefore  the  command  to 
return  in  all  things  into  due  obedience  to  God — the  com- 
mands to  repent  and  to  believe,  are  commands  of  the 
law — they  emanate  from  God  as  universal  Governor. 
And  thus,  the  whole  business  of  preaching  the  moral  law, 
and  enforcing  its  duties  upon  the  hearts  and  consciences 
of  men,  belongs  to  the  ministerial  office — it  belonged  to 
Christ's  office  and  he  has  entrusted  it  to  his  servants. 
They,  therefore,  are  directly  in  the  line  of  their  duty, 
when  they  press  all  the  moral  obligations  of  the  law 
upon  the  consciences  of  men.  Consequently,  the  ob- 
jections of  some  to  law  preaching,  are  not  founded  on 
scripture,  nor  in  reason.  For  the  law  and  the  gospel 
are  not  two  different  moral  systems,  having,  in  some  de- 
gree, antagonist  interests.  They  are  one  in  their  aim 
and  end  :  both  are  designed  to  promote  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  happiness  of  man.  The  latter  is  a  remedial 
scheme,  as  we  have  seen,  for  the  incidental  evils  grow- 
ing out  of  the  violation  of  the  former.  When  God,  in 
the  person  of  the  Son,  commands  all  men  every  where 
to  repent — that  is,  to  return  to  due  obedience  to  himself, 
he  utters  no  new  command.  It  is  not  a  new  law  he 
promulgates,  but  simply  what  belongs  to  the  un chang- 
ing1 and  eternal  nature  of  moral  rule.  So  when  he  en- 
joins  men  to  believe  in  God,  it  is  no  new  law.  All 
moral  beings  are  bound  always  to  believe  all  that  God 
tells  them.  All  that  is  peculiar  to  the  gospel,  in  saving 
faith,  as  we  shall  see,  is  merely  a  modification  in  the 
forms  of  man's  belief.  It  brings  in  no  new  principle. 
Persuaded  I  am,  therefore  ;  that  all  which  is  mandatory 
in  the  gospel  call,  is  from  Christ  as  Governor,  to  whom 
all  power  is  committed  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 

(2)  Therefore,  the  call  thus  far  is  universal.  All 
men  every  where  are  commanded  to  trust  in  God  and  to 
turn  from  sin  to  Him  and  holiness.  The  command,  en- 
forcing the  obligation,  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  sim- 
ply a  going  forth  of  the  laws  eternal  claim  upon  its 
moral  subjects.  How  it  should  be  otherwise,  to  my 
mind  is  an  impossible  conception.  A  perfect  moral 
Governor,  that  should  cease  to  require  pefect  obedience, 


GENERAL  GOSPEL  CALL.  269 

is  a  solecism — a  perfect  moral  Governor  who  should 
never  call  upon  a  revolted  subject  to  return  to  due  alle- 
giance, but  abandon  the  helm,  the  moment  any  should 
transgress,  is  a  contradiction. 

(3)  But  again — in  the  gospel  call  there  is  a  promise  ; 
"  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ," — this  is  a  command 
— "  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,"  this  is  a  promise.  "Ask," 
this  is  mandatory,  "  and  ye  shall  receive,"  this  is  prom- 
isory.  That  is  the  going  forth  of  authority,  this  is  the 
going  forth  of  love.  All  gospel  promises  originate  in 
the  eternal,  free  and  sovereign  love  of  God  and  flow  in 
upon  us  through  the  rent  vail  of  Messiah's  flesh.  These, 
in  a  strict  sense,  indeed,  are  the  gospel.  The  proffer  of 
life  through  the  blood  of  Calvary,  is  good  news.  Yet 
is  it  manifest,  that,  independent  of  the  command  going 
before,  this  characteristic  of  the  gospel  strictly  so  called, 
could  not  exist.  That  is,  the  promise  of  salvation  can 
be  glad  tidings  only  to  him  who  feels  himself  lost.  Sup- 
pose you  promise  deliverance  from  death  and  hell, 
through  the  blood  of  Christ,  to  the  angels  of  glory  ;  will 
they  understand  you  ?  Will  they  account  it  glad  tidings ! 
Clearly  then,  the  very  nature  of  the  gospel  invitations 
and  promises,  is  most  materially  affected  by  the  nature 
of  the  previous  command  and  the  person  to  whom  it  is 
addressed.  And  practically,  in  proportion  as  the  man- 
datory call  has  seized  upon  the  sin  disabled  soul,  will  be 
the  measure  of  its^gladness  when  the  promissory  call  per- 
vades the  heart.  The  gospel,  therefore,  meaning  the 
promises,  apart  from  the  command,  is  not  good  news. 
Both  must  go  together.  The  sword  of  the  Spirit  must 
open  a  way  for  the  balm  of  Gilead.  He  only  can  be 
healed,  who  has  been  wounded.  The  promises  are  prac- 
tically good  news  only  to  those  who  have  felt  the  force 
of  the  command  '  Repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel,' 
and  of  their  own  utter  unworthiness,  and  inability  to  re- 
turn to  a  holy  state. 

4.  This  prepares  the  way  for  a  very  important  inqui- 
ry, viz  ;  Is  the  promise  in  the  gospel  call,  conditional 
or  unconditional  ?  Has  a  minister  authority  to  say  to 
every  sinner  he  meets — here  is  salvation  for  you — you 
shall  be  saved.  Everv  one  of  you  shall  live  forever? 
*23 


270  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED 

Christ  Jesus  has  taken  away  all  your  sins :  there  is 
nothing  against  you  in  the  book  of  God's  account?  Or 
has  the  ambassador  of  Christ  authority  only  to  com- 
mand all  men  to  whom  he  comes,  to  believe,  and  repent 
and  bring  forth  fruits,  meet  for  repentance,  and  evi- 
dence of  its  genuineness ;  and  then  to  promise  every 
penitent  believer  eternal  life  ?  Does  his  commission  au- 
thorize him  to  do  more  than  assure  the  truly  converted 
man  of  salvation  1 

In  view  of  these  inquiries,  I  think  the  plain  reader 
of  the  Bible,  will  not  long  hesitate.  The  promises  are 
surely  addressed  to  the  faithful,  penitent,  practical 
christian.  Whilst  the  disobedient,  impenitent  and 
unbelieving  man,  has  no  right  to  their  comforts. 
Whether  then,  you  choose  to  call  it  a  condition  or  not, 
the  promises,  no  man  has  a  right  to  address  to  any  but 
believers  in  Christ.  The  command  of  the  gospel  call, 
is  addressed  to  all  men  without  exception,  to  whose 
ears  it  comes:  the  promise  is  limited  to  the  children  of 
faith.  "  He  that  belie veth  shall  be  saved.1''  There  is 
not  a  promise  of  life  and  salvation  in  all  the  bible,  that 
goes  without  and  beyond  this  limit.  It  is,  consequent- 
ly, the  duty  of  every  gospel  minister,  clearly  to  define 
die  character  of  the  believer  and  the  penitent,  and  to  ad- 
dress his  promises,  or  rather,  his  Master's  promises,  to 
those  and  to  those  only  who  sustain  the  character  of 
true  believers.  And  so  far  from  extending  the  promise 
beyond  this;  it  is  made  his  official  duty  to  denounce  the 
curse  of  God  on  all  besides.  "  He  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  "Knowing,  therefore,  the  torror  of 
the  Lord,  we  persuade  men."  We  paint  the  character 
of  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving,  and  tell  you  all,  who 
sustain  this  character,  that,  continuing  thus,  ye  shall  be 
damned.  There  can  be  no  substantial  spiritual  joy  for 
you  here:  and  all  beyond  is  dreary  and  doleful  despair. 
"  He  that  believeth  not  the  son,  shall  not  see  life,  but 
the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him." 

When,  therefore,  we  are  asked — and  it  is  often  done 
with  an  air  of  triumph — Is  not  the  gospel  call  univer- 
sal ?  and  does  not  this  prove  the  atonement  universal  ? 
our  response  is — that  the  gospel  call  consists  of  a  com- 


GENERAL  GOSPEL    CALL.  27 1 

mand  and  a  promise.  The  command,  which  enforces 
universal  duty,  is  of  course  aniversal,  and  all  who  hear, 
are  bound  by  it.  The  promise  of  life  and  heaven,  is 
particular,  viz:  it  is  addressed  only  to  the  believer — 
and  no  man  without  the  most  arrogant  presumption,  can 
say  to  any  individual  sinner,  'this  salvation  is  yours  ;' 
until  he  has  indubitable  evidence,  that  such  sinner  is 
truly  penitent  and  faithful.  The  command  is  absolute 
— the  promise  is  conditional:  that  is  universal,  this  par- 
ticular. 

5.  But  again,  every  one  who  complies  with  the  con- 
dition, may  and  ought  and  doth  lay  hold  on  the  promise. 
And  it  cannot  be  doubted,  but  that  God's  faithfulness  is 
bound  to  fulfil  the  promise,  by  bestowing,  giving,  con- 
ferring the  tiling  promised,  viz:  salvation.  It  would  be 
a  violation  of  truth,  to  withhold  salvation  from  a  peni- 
tent and  obedient  believer.  He  who  sustains  this  char- 
acter, has  a  claim  upon  the  divine  faithfulness.  The 
conditions  of  the  promise  are  complied  with,  and  the 
promiser  has  no  option;  he  is  bound  by  his  own  vera- 
city, to  give  the  thing  promised. 

Now  here  is  the  precise  point  at  which  Arminiarism 
interposes.  Exactly  so — says  its  advocate.  'God  pre- 
sents a  conditional  promise;  man  complies  with  the 
condition  and  then  claims  the  reward  of  life.'  This  is 
true  or  false,  just  as  you  take  it.  If  you  mean,  that  the 
sinner,  by  his  own  strength  and  freewill,  changed  his 
own  heart,  produced  in  himself  true  faith  and  saving  re- 
pentance and  holy  obedience — if  this  is  man's  ivork, 
then  your  doctrine  is  false  and  soul-destructive.  If  you 
mean,  that  the  same  God,  who  as  Governor  commands 
us  to  believe  and  obey,  and  who  promises  salvation — 
by  his  Spirit,  renews  the  soul  to  spiritual  life;  produces 
true  faith  and  saving  repentance  and  holy  obedience  ; 
then  your  doctrine  is  true,  for  it  stains  the  pride  of  all 
human  glory,  and  places  the  crown  of  our  salvation 
upon  the  only  head  worthy  to  wear  it. 

6.  Here  we  meet  another  turn  of  the  objection. 
"  But  the  gospel,  says  the  objector,  is  represented  as  a 
feast — the  King's  servants  are  sent  to  invite  all  to  come: 
now  if  there  is  not  provision  mad3  for  them,  what,  if 


272  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED 

more  should  come  than  could  find  place  at  his  table  ?" 
I  answer,  here  again  is  the  false  hypothosis,  that  men 
may  and  can  and  will  come,  without  any  influence  of* 
the  King's  power  in  changing  their  hearts.  Whereas, 
the  truth  is,  and  the  King  has  told  us  so,  that  none  of 
the  whole  who  are  invited  and  commanded  to  come,  is 
ever  found  willing,  until  the  Holy  Spirit  has  renewed 
and  compelled  them  to  come  in.  It  is  their  duty  to  be- 
lieve and  obey;  but  none  has  any  disposition  and  abili- 
ty to  do  this  duty,  until  God's  Spirit  renews  the  soul. 
Unless,  therefore,  it  should  happen,  that  God  should 
regenerate  souls,  whom  he  does  not  mean  to  save — 
plasphemous  thought !  the  absurd  hypothesis  of  a  sin- 
ner believing  and  repenting  and  yet  being  rejected  of 
God,  can  never  occur. 

What  if  more  should  come  than  Christ  has  provided 
room  for !  Presumptuous  folly  !  What  if  the  Ethiopian 
should  change  his  skin  and  the  leopard  his  spots  ? 
What  if  the  devil  should  become  indeed  an  angel  of 
glory?  When  will  men  learn,  that  to  reason  from  im- 
posible  suppositions,  can  never  promote  the  cause  of 
truth  ? 

7.  But  it  has  been  common,  I  am  aware,  to  place  the 
general  gospel  call  on  other  grounds.  Most  of  the 
friends  of  a  true  and  strict  atonement,  answer  the  above 
objection,  by  retreating  to  the  doctrine  of  the  infinite 
merit  of  Christ's  death  and  obedience.  Few  men  have 
used  stronger  language  to  this  amount,  than  Dr.  Owen. 

"To  the  honor  then  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Mediator, 
God  and  man,  our  all  sufficient  Redeemer,  we  affirm, 
that  such  and  so  great  was  the  dignity  and  worth  of  his 
death  and  blood  shedding,  of  so  precious  a  value,  of 
such  an  infinite  fulness  and  sufficiency  was  this  oblation 
of  himself,  that  it  was  every  way  able  and  perfectly 
sufficient  to  redeem,  justify,  reconcile  and  save,  all  the 
sinners  in  the  world,  and  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God 
for  all  the  sins  of  all  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  every 
one  to  everlasting  glory.  Now,  this  fullness  and  suffi- 
ciency of  the  merit  of  the  death  of  Christ,  is  a  fouudation 
unto  two  things,  viz: 

1st.  The  general  publishing   of  the  gospel  unto  all 


GENEBAL  GOSPEL    CALL.  273 

nations,  with  the  right  that  it  hath  to  be  preached  to 
every  creature,  Math,  xx,  vi,  Mark  xvi,  15.  Because 
the  way  of  salvation  which  it  declares,  is  wide  enough 
for  all  to  walk  in;  there  is  enough  in  the  remedy  it 
brings  to  light,  to  heal  all  their  diseases,  to  deliver  them 
from  all  their  evils  :  if  there  were  a  thousands  worlds, 
the  gospel  of  Christ  might,  upon  this  ground,  be  preach- 
ed to  them  all ;  there  being  enough  in  it  for  the  salva- 
tion of  them  all,  if  so  be,  they  will  desire  virtue  from 
him  by  touching  him  in  faith,  the  only  way  to  draw  re- 
freshment from  this  fountain  of  salvation. 

2dly.  That  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  in  their  par- 
ticular congregations,  being  utterly  unacquainted  with 
the  purpose  and  secret  counsel  of  God,  being  also  for- 
bidden to  pry  or  search  into  it.  Deut.  xxix,  29,  may  from 
hence,  justifiably  call  upon  every  man  to  believe,  with 
assurance  of  salvation  unto  every  one,  in  particular 
upon  his  so  doing  " — Owen's  Death  of  Death,  204. 

I  have  italicised  the  last  words,  to  shew  that  Dr. 
Owen's  universal  call,  is  really  particular  as  I  have  al- 
ready explained.  The  command  is  general,  but  the 
promise  and  assurance  of  salvation,  is  particularly  limit- 
ed to  them  that  believe.  On  the  extract  I  farther  re- 
mark, that  however,  it  be  the  common  opinion,  and 
however  the  merits  of  Christ  be  correctly  stated  as  infi- 
nite, vet  I  do  not  believe  this  to  be  at  all  the  foundation 
of  the  command  in  the  general  gospel  call.  The  true 
and  proper  basis  of  it  is  laid  in  the  authority  of  God, 
commanding  in  the  remedial  law,  what  he  commanded 
in  the  original  institute,  all  men  to  trust  in  him,  and  obey 
his  will.  Such  command  is  in  the  gospel  call,  "Come 
unto  me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden."  The 
Son  of  the  mighty  King,  himself  both  Lord  and  King, 
goes  forth  to  his  revolted  subjects  and  proclaims  an  am- 
mesty — commands  all  the  rebels  to  lay  down' their  arms. 
He  promises  to  all  and  every  one  who  shall  thus  ex- 
press  their  submission,  pardon  and  restoration  to  fa- 
vour. But  the  heart  of  a  desperate  rebel  is  in  every 
one  of  them,  and  not  one  among  the  millions  of  revol- 
ters  ever  will  accept  the  proffered  pardon  ;  unless,  be« 
sides   all  this,  a  new  temper  and  disposition  shall  first 


274  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED 

have  been  given  to  him.  Here  comes  in  the  gospel  pro- 
visions. The  Spirit  of  the  Great  King  changes  the 
hearts  of  an  immense  number,  who,  accordingly,  ac- 
cept the  proffered  pardon  and  secure  their  lives.  The 
rest;  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  run  on  and 
perish.  The  just  consequences  of  their  own  sin  over- 
take them,  and  they  die  in  their  own  iniquity.  Their 
death  is  not  caused,  nor  is  it  even  occasioned,  by  the 
change  of  temper  and  consequent  pardon  of  the  others  ; 
but  simply  and  solely  by  their  sinful  perseverance  in 
rebellion.  They  are  cut  off  as  rebels,  not  only  for  the 
last,  but  for  all  the  previous  acts  of  their  resistance  to 
their  King's  government.  The  formal  ground  of  their 
condemnation  is  not,  because  other  men  are  saved — nor 
because  of  the  all-sufficiency  of  Christs  atonement,  but 
only  because  they  sinned.  The  damnation  of  men  is 
not  secured  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

True,  the  rejection  of  the  King's  pardon  is  an  addi- 
tional and  aggravating  act  of  their  rebellion;  and  in  order 
to  this  the  gospel  call  must  have  been  sounded  in  their 
ears;  but  it  is  not  for  this  purpose  it  is  so  sounded.  It 
is,  that  those  whose  ears  are  opened,  may  hear  and  re- 
turn. The  others'  having  an  opportunity  to  commit 
this  last  act  in  rejecting  the  pardon,  is  an  incidental  cir- 
cumstance, but  not  the  reason  why  the  amnesty  is  pro-> 
claimed  and  the  command  to  cease  rebellion  is  sounded 
in  their  ears.  The  purpose  of  the  proclamation  is,  to 
reach  them  whom  the  Lord  their  God  shall  call :  but 
in  accomplishing  this,  an  opportunity  is  necessarily  of- 
fered to  the  other  revolters  to  revolt  more  and  more. 

But  the  nature  of  unbelief,  as  the  crowning  sin,  will 
come  in  better  after  we  shall  have  examined  the  doctrine 
of  faith. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

the  saviour's  intercession. 

That  a  man  be  indifferent  to  the  effects  of  his  own 
actions — the  success  of  his  own  enterprise,  is  scarcely 
conceivable.  All  the  laws,  which  ordinarily  prompt  to 
action,  must  first  be  reversed;  and  to  account  for  any 
action  at  all,  would  be  very  difficult.  Our  simplest  no- 
tion of  a  moral  act  involves  the  idea  of  moral  motive 
operating  upon  and  determining  choice;  and  to  suppose 
a  state  of  indifference  as  to  results,  is  to  suppose,  that 
the  results  themselves  could  operate  as  a  cause  of  ac- 
tion, until  the  very  moment  of  their  achievement,  and 
then  cease  to  have  any  power  to  influence  the  mind. 
It  may  well,  therefore,  be  doubted,  whether  a  state  of 
indifference  to  the  success  of  his  own  labours,  is  possi- 
ble with  any  rational  mind.  And  should  such  a  state 
actually  occur,  it  might  well  be  enquired  whither  that 
mind  had  not  lost  its  balance  and  ceased  to  be  a  moral 
agent. 

Now  this  characteristic  of  our  rational  nature — this 
essential  attribute  of  its  moral  character,  was  not  want- 
ing in  the  Saviour  of  men.  Petulance  of  anxiety  for 
results,  he  never  did  display;  but  the  steadfast  fixedness 
of  his  eye  and  heart  upon  the  hour  of  his  sorrows  and 
the  worlds  triumph,  shewed  that  the  glorious  results, 
being  the  recompense  of  his  own  reward,  were  never 
matters  of  indifference  to  him.  To  suppose,  that  after 
he  had  endured  the  pains  and  privations  of  this  sorrow- 
ful life,  the  groans  and  agony  of  Gethsemane  and  of 
Calvary,  he  henceforth  ceased  to  regard  the  permanent 
issues  of  the  whole,  were  to  suppose  in  him  strange 
contradictories  indeed.  Such,  no  reader  of  the  Bible  can 
believe  to  exist.  On  the  contrary,  every  careful  reader 
must  believe  that  Jesus  always  looked  and  still  looks 
with  intense  interest  upon  the  effects  of  his  own  obedi- 


276  THE  SAVIOURS  INTERCESSION. 

ence  and  death,  and  that  he  now  exercises  his  divine 
government  over  the  universe,  with  a  direct  and  special 
and  principal  regard  to  these  glorious  results.  Such 
temper  he  displayed  immediately  after  his  resurrection, 
and  before  his  ascension.  His  promises  relative  to  the 
mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  their  fulfilment  at  the 
pentecostal  feast,  are  a  beautiful  illustration  of  his  deep 
concern  for  consequences.  The  purpose  of  this  chapter 
is  to  illustrate  the  outgoings  of  this  principle  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Saviour's  intercesssion. 

SECTION  I. 

The  meaning  of  the  term  and  thing. 

Intercession  is  coming  between,  and  implies  three 
persons  or  parties.  The  middle  person  is  the  Interces- 
sor. Hence,  Jesus  is  called  Mediator — that  is,  the 
middle  person — one  who  throws  himself  between  God 
and  man.  Man  had  offended  against  his  Maker's  law 
and  was  justly  obnoxious  to  the  full  weight  of  its  sen- 
tence. To  the  infliction  of  death  the  law  prompts  ;  the 
sword  of  justice  uplifted  in  the  hand  of  God,  is  about 
to  smite  the  offending  rebel  down  to  perdition  ;  Christ 
steps  in  between — he  mediates  in  arresting  or  staying 
the  stroke — rather  in  changing  its  direction  and  turning 
the  sword's  burning  point  in  upon  his  own  soul.  The 
Shepherd  is  smitten,  that  the  sheep  may  escape.  This 
doctrine  we  have  canvassed  at  some  length.  But  now, 
having  mediated  so  far  as  regards  the  claims  of  law 
upon  his  people,  and  so  mediated  as  to  turn  the  aveng- 
ing stroke  of  justice  from  his  people  upon  himself:  and 
having  done  every  thing  else  which  the  law's  claim 
upon  his  people  contained,  he  feels  his  work  for  them  yet 
far  from  being  completed.  They, — many  of  them  are 
yet  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bond  of  iniquity;  mul- 
titudes of  those  whom  he  must  bring  to  glory  are  yet 
unborn.  Hence  an  all-pervading  feeling  on  their  be- 
half, occupies  the  bosom  of  him  who  sitteth  upon  the 
throne.  He  steps  in  between  the  Father  and  his  offend- 
ing children,  and   entreats   for  them  the  blessings  they 


THE  SAVIOURS  INTERCESSION.  277 

need.  Intercession  is  a  part  of  mediation,  and  includes 
all  the  prayers  which  Christ,  our  Great  High  Priest 
offers  up  for  us — "  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession 
for  us,"  Heb.  vii,  25:  to  manage  our  business  for  us 
before  God.  Such  is  the  force  of  the  Greek.  So  in 
Acts  xxv,  24,  "  And  Festus  said,  King  Agrippa,  ye  see 
this  man  about  whom  all  the  multitude  of  the  Jews 
have  dealt  ivith  mef  it  is  the  same  word — have  in- 
ter ceded.  So  Rom.  viii,  27 — "  because  he  maketh  inter- 
cession for  the  saints" — he  manageth  the  saints  busi- 
ness— he  dealetk  for  the  saints.  And  v,  34.  Who  al- 
so dealeth  for — manageth  with  God  the  affairs  of  the 
Saints.  It  does  not  properly  mean  only  to  pray  for. 
For  the  Jews  dealt  with  Festus,  not  by  asking  benefits 
of  him  for  Paul;  but  they  endeavoured  to  procure  a  sen- 
tence against  the  Apostle,  and  thus  to  compass  his 
death.  Their  dealing,  therefore,  was  the  presentation 
of  charges,  and  proof,  such  as  they  had.  So  Rom.  xi, 
2.  "  Elias  maketh  intercession  to  God  against  Israel." 
And  in  doing  this,  he  states  their  crimes,  v.  3,  ''Lord, 
they  have  killed  thy  prophets  and  digged  down  thine 
altars." 

One  other  case  occurs  j  Xew  Testament,  1  Tim. 

ii,  1,  "I  will,  that  first  dj"  all  prayers,  supplications  and 
Intercessions  be  made."  Here  it  is  clearly  manifest 
that  intercessions  are  somewhat  different  from  prayers 
and  importunate  entreaties.  This  third  expression,  in- 
tercessions— is  not  mere  sound  without  precise  mean- 
ing ?  It  signifies,  The  presentation  cf  a  case  be- 
fore a  judge  and  the  claiming  of  a  decision  according 
to  law.  Such  was  the  action  of  the  Jews  before  Festus. 
They  importunately  urged  the  judge  to  pass  on  Paul's  case, 
according  to  their  representations  of  it.  Such  was  the 
action  of  Elias,  he  presented  the  sins  of  Israel  before 
God,  and  urged  the  expression  of  his  vengeance  upon 
them.  Such,  I  contend  is  the  meaning  in  all  the  other 
cases.  When  the  Spirit,  Rom.  viii,  26,  maketh  inter- 
cession for  us  with  unutterable  groanings, — he  presents 
our  case — the  case  of  Christ's  people  and  earnestly  de- 
mands a  decision  in  their  favour  according  to  law — he 
manages  their  cause  for  them.  When  Christ  v.  34, 
24 


278  Christ's  intercession. 

"maketh  intercession,"  it  is  the  same.  He  presents 
the  cause  of  his  people.  He  shews  before  the  presence 
of  the  Fathers  tribunal,  where  he  is  "  our  advocate," 
that  all  his  people  have  in  himself  fulfilled  all  law  in 
all  respects,  viz  :  He,  for  them,  has  paid  the  penalty 
and  fulfilled  the  precepts.  Consequently  he  urges  a 
decision  in  their  case,  and  that  a  favourable  decision. 
He  claims  it  on  the  ground  of  his  own  merits — merits 
which  he  evinces,  are  for  them,  and  therefore  they  ought 
to  be  pardoned  and  justified  and  saved.  Jesus  our  ad- 
vocate manages  our  whole  cause  for  us.  Thus  the 
Greek  word,  translated  intercession,  does  not  necessari- 
ly mean  praying  for;  it  often  means  praying  against. 
It  may  include  either,  for  it  simply  describes  all  the  ac- 
tions and  doings  of  one  who  urges  and  presses  a  suit  in 
court,  that  it  may  be  decided:  and  that  irrespective  of 
that  decision  whether  it  be  for  or  against.  Applied  to 
Christ,  it  of  course  includes  whatever  he  does  towards 
procuring,  at  the  bar  of  God,  a  decision  in  favour  of  his 
people.  He  is  their  advocate  with  the  Father  and 
pleads  their  cause. 

Now  this  suggests  the  idea  of  accusation  and  an  op- 
posing pleader.  So  the  Bible  has  it ;  Satan  is  called 
44  the  accuser  of  the  brethren,"  Rev.  xxii,  10.  And  in- 
asmuch, as  there  is  a  powerful  "  adversary,"  there 
ought  to  be  a  powerful  advocate.  In  Math,  v,  25,  we 
are  advised,  "  agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly,  whilst 
thou  art  in  the  way  with  him,  lest  at  any  time  the  ad- 
versary deliver  thee  to  the  judge,  &c;"  which  shews 
that  the  adversary  is  the  person  prosecuting  a  claim 
against  another.  Hence  Peter,  i.  v,  8,  admonishes  us, 
44be  sober,  be  viligant;  because  your  adversary  the  de- 
vil, as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about."  And  the  widow, 
Luke  xviii,  3,  cried,  4'Avenge  me  of  mine  adversary." 
Give  judgment  in  my  case.  The  phraseology  of  the 
Bible  all  leads  us  to  the  idea  of  an  accuser,  who  is  a 
pleader  against;  a  tribunal  at  which  he  wishes  to  pro- 
cure a  sentence  against  a  person;  an  advocate — one 
who  pleads  for  the  person  accused  and  shews  cause  why 
a  favorabe  sentence  should  be  pronounced,  and  thence 
urges  the  court  for  such  a  sentence.     The  intercession 


Christ's  plea.  279 

of  Christ  then,  consists  of  his  plea  and  his  claim  found- 
ed on  his  plea* 

SECTION  II. 

Christ's  plea  on  behalf  of  his  people. 

This  plea  consists  of  two  parts ;  viz  :  that  which  goes 
to  repel  the  accusation  ;  and  that  which  goes  to  establish 
the  very  opposite  of  it.  As  to  the  former,  its  nature  must 
in  all  cases  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  accusation; 
for  it  consists  in  resistance  to  it.  Now,  the  accusation 
brought  by  the  adversary,  is  that  these  men  have  sinned 
and,  according  to  the  law,  ought  to  be  delivered  over  to 
himself,  to  become  a  part  of  his  accursed  and  wicked 
crew.  Satan  desires  to  have  them  as  his  own  subjects, 
and  the  ground  of  his  claim  is,  that  they  have  identi- 
fied their  interests  with  his,  and  of  right  and  law  are 
doomed  to  be  with  him. 

Against  this,  "  our  advocate  with  the  Father"  puts  in 
the  counter  plea,  that  he  himself  has  suffered  in  the 
room  of  his  people — has  met  the  entire  penal  claims  of 
law  against  them  ;  so  that  their  deliverance  into  the  hands 
of  the  tormentor,  would  be  unrighteous  ;  for  it  would  be 
a  second  infliction  of  penal  evil  for  the  same  sins.  Satan 
claims  them  as  sold  slaves  under  sentence  of  law.  Christ 
claims  them  as  having  redeemed  them  from  the  curse  of 
the  law  and  points  to  his  pierced  feet  and  hands  and  side 
— to  his  tears  and  groans  and  bloody  sweat.  Hence 
obviously,  he  admits,  that  once  the  accusation  was  just 
and  their  deliverance  into  the  tormentor's  hands  would 
have  been  right;  but  now  the  torment — the  punishment 
due,  by  course  of  law  and  right,  has  been  inflicted  upon 
himself  as  their  surety,  and  hence,  he  claims  the  re- 
lease of  his  people  from  all  the  agonies  of  the  curse. 

This  part  of  Christ's  advocacy  is  beautifully  repre- 
sented in  the  law  of  Moses.  The  High  Priest  repre- 
sents Christ,  in  the  progress  of  his  ministrations,  this 
High  Priest  offers  up  the  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  burnt 
offerings,  without  the  tabernacle.  This  is  Christ  suf- 
fering without  the  gate.     The  Priest  then  takes  a  part  of 


280  Christ's  plea. 

the  blood  and  passes  through  the  blue  vail  into  the  most 
holy  place  and  sprinkles  it  on  the  mercy  seat;  this  is 
Christ  passing  through  the  blue  vault  of  heaven  into  the 
presence  chamber  of  the  great  King  and  carrying  with 
him  the  evidence  of  his  sufferings  and  death.  The  Priest 
thus  secures  forgiveness  of  sins  for  the  people  ;  Christ 
thus  repels  the  accusation  of  the  adversary  and  evinces 
the  right  in  himself,  to  his  people's  deliverance — that  is, 
he  obtains  the  remission  of  their  sins.  (Heb.  ix.)  "Neith- 
er by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own 
blood,  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place,  hav- 
ing obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us" — "  but  into 
heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for 
us."  "  Wherefore  he  is  able  also  to  save  them  to  the 
uttermost  that  come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever 
liveth  to  manage  their  cause  with  God — to  make  inter- 
cession for  them."  A  very  material — an  all  important 
part  of  Christ's  intercession  is  his  presenting  the  evi- 
dence of  his  death — that  is,  his  satisfaction  rendered  to 
divine  justice  for  his  people's  sin.  Without  this,  his 
appearance  before  God  for  us  were  all  in  vain.  And 
this  vanity  is  also  illustrated  by  Moses.  If  even  the 
high  priest,  without  having  first  offered  the  proper  sac- 
ifice,  enter  the  most  holy  place,  within  the  vail,  he 
shall  die.  (Lev.  xvi.  2.)  The  sacrifice  must  first  be  of- 
fered, before  he  dare  enter  into  the  most  holy  place  and 
before  he  can  take  fire  and  the  incense,  which  represents 
prayer,  and  offer  them  before  the  mercy  seat.  Here, 
the  incense  sets  forth  Christ's  supplication  for  his  peo- 
ples's  pardon :  and  it  becomes  available  only  by  fire 
from  the  altar  of  burnt  offerings.  That  is,  the  entire 
offering  of  Christ's  prayer  for  his  people,  depends  upon 
his  previous  sacrifice.  Unless  he  carries  with  him  the 
memorial  of  his  own  blood,  this  incence  of  his  prayer 
can  have  no  odor :  his  cause  is  lost. 

2.  The  second  part  of  Christ's  plea  consists  in  pre- 
senting the  evidence  of  his  having  fulfilled  all  righteous- 
ness for  his  people.  Not  content  with  their  rescue  from 
the  positive  suffering  of  the  curse,  he  proceeds  to  assert 
a  claim  for  them  to  positive  blessedness.  He  shews, 
that  as  the  second  Adam,  he  has  established  for  his  peo- 


Christ's  claim  for  his  people.  281 

pie,  by  his  own  perfect  obedience,  the  ground  on  which 
life  was  promised  to  the  first  Adam  and  all  his  posterity. 
And  consequently  all  that  life  and  happiness  which  was 
promised  in  the  covenant  to  the  children  of  the  one, 
must  of  right  pass  over  and  belong  to  the  children  of  the 
other. 

Now  this  plea,  in  which  he  evinces  the  perfection  of 
his  atonement  and  of  his  obedience,  our  Advocate  lays 
down  as  the  basis  of  his  claim. 

SECTION  III. 

Chrisfs  claim  on  behalf  of  his  people. 

This  of  course  consists  of  two  parts,  corresponding  to 
the  basis  of  it.     ■* 

He  claims  for  them  exemption  from  the  penal  evils  of 
the  curse  :  as  we  have  already  seen.  And  this  includes 
their  deliverance  from  guilt  and  woe  ;  which  deliverance 
is,  of  course,  not  an  abstraction  ;  not  a  mere  name  ;  but 
a  blessed  and  glorious  reality.  Hence  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  sent  to  rescue  them  from  the  spiritual  death  which 
sin  had  brought  into  their  souls,  and  to  inform  them  of 
the  fact  that  their  sins  are  forgiven — that  the  plea  of 
their  advocate  is  sustained  in  the  court  of  heaven ;  and 
they  are  now  the  reconciled  children  of  God. 

Now  you  will  observe,  this  mission  of  the  Spirit,  and 
his  entire  work  of  regeneration,  and  bearing  witness  in 
the  souls  of  Christ's  people,  that  they  are  his,  is  obtain- 
ed by  our  Advocate,  as  matter  of  right  to  Him  :  He 
claims  it:  and  "  him  the  Father  heareth  always  ;"  con- 
sequently the  Holy  Spirit  is  sent.  This  accords  to 
what  lie  states,  John  xvi.  7  :  "  It  is  expedient  for  you 
that  I  go  away  ;  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter 
will  come  unto  you ;  but  if  I  depart  I  will  send  him  unto 
you."  Ch.  xv.  26  :  "  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come, 
whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the 
Spirit  of  truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he 
shall  testify  of  me." 

Analagous  to   these  sacred   truths  are  the  affairs  of 
men.     All  our  rules  of  right  are  from  God.     Whenever 
24* 


282  Christ's  claim 

a  faithful  advocate  at  a  human  tribunal  evinces  the  jus- 
tice of  the  cause  he  has  espoused,  and  secures  a  sentence 
in  favour  of  his  client,  he  claims — and  justice  gladly  re- 
sponds to  his  claim — he  claims  the  release  of  the  priso- 
ner. It  is  justice  that  throws  open  the  prison  door,  and 
proclaims  liberty  to  the  captive.  It  is  justice  that  wings 
the  messenger  of  mercy  from  the  throne  of  God — justice 
to  the  Redeemer  is  mercy  to  his  redeemed  ones. 

2.  The  other  point,  in  the  claim  of  our  Advocate,  re- 
gards the  precept  of  the  law.  According  to  the  essential 
nature  of  moral  government,  the  law  holds  out  some 
good  as  the  motive  to  its  obedience  ;  when  the  mind 
yields  to  the  force  of  motive  and  obeys,  the  good  thing 
proffered  must,  of  right,  be  given.  This  is  the  essence 
of  the  covenant  of  works.  God  commanded  obedience, 
and  promised  life.  In  the  original  form,  this  covenant 
was  broken  by  man,  and  thus  came  death.  In  great  con- 
descension, God  set  on  foot  a  remedial  covenant,  in  the 
hands  of  an  infallible  surelv — the  second  Adam.  Here 
is  the  point  in  which  mercy  is  exercised.  By  no  prin- 
ciple of  law  was  God  bound  to  do  this  :  it  is  wholly  gra- 
tuitous and  gracious.  But  now,  this  second  Adam  per- 
forms the  obedience  required— he  establishes  the  princi- 
ple of  the  original  institute,  and  claims  for  his  own 
people  the  promised  life.  The  claim,  you  will  see,  is 
based  upon  the  fact  of  his  having  fulfilled  the  law  by  an 
entire,  total,  and  complete  obedience.  To  such  obedi- 
ence God  at  first  promised  life  to  man  ;  and  now  Christ, 
as  the  Advocate  of  his  redeemed  people,  presses  his 
right  to  their  blessedness  forever.  In  his  plea  he  gives 
evidence  of  this  fact,  and  having- proved  a  full  compliance 
with  the  conditions  of  the  promise,  he  looks  to  the  Fa- 
ther for  a  similar  compliance  in  the  bestowment  of  life. 
"  Father,  I  will  that  those  also,  whom  thou  hast  givew 
me,  be  with  me  where  I  am  ;  that  they  may  behold  my 
glory,  which  thou  hast  given  me  :"   John,  xvii.  24. 

With  these  views  before  us.  let  us  remark  in  conclu- 
sion: 

1.  The  loose  and  undefined  notion,  entertained  (it  is 
to  be  feared)  by  not  a  few,  that  Christ's  intercession  is 
simply,  his  bald   and  naked  request  or  prayer  for  men, 


FOR  HIS  PEOPLE.  283 

is  erroneous,  and  consequently  mischievous.  It  i3  er- 
roneous, because  it  omits  the  main  matter  of  interces- 
sion, viz:  the  plea  on  which  the  prayer  is  founded: 
the  argument  of  the  cause.  It  leaves  out  of  view,  par- 
tially, if  not  totally,  the  moral  and  legal  relations  of  the 
parties. 

It  is  mischievous,  for  the  same  reason  ;  and  hence 
leads  to  low  thoughts  of  Christ  and  his  work.  If  he 
only  prays — asks  benefits  for  his  people,  that  can  be 
done  by  a  fellow  sinner,  or  a  saint  on  earth  and  in  hea- 
ven. Sincere  and  ardent  and  importunate  prayer  is  of- 
fered up  by  men  for  their  fellow  men.  If  this  is  all 
Christ  does,  then  men  may  as  well  approach  God 
through  the  intercession  of  St.  Patrick  or  St.  Peter,  or 
the  blessed  Virgin.  Hence  all  the  idolatry  of  the  popish 
system. 

On  the  contrary,  if  the  chief  item  in  intercession  be 
and  is  Christ's  plea,  in  which  he  shews  his  fulfilment  of 
all  claims  of  law  upon  his  people,  then  all  men  must  see 
and  feel  a  vast  difference  between  the  intercession  of 
Christ  and  that  of  mere  men.  We  may  intercede  for  our 
friends,  but  we  have  no  merit  of  our  own  to  plead.  We 
may  refer  to  Christ's  all-sufficiency,  and  through  him 
have  acceptable  approach  to  God. 

2.  We  see  why  our  persons  must  be  accepted  with 
God,  before  our  prayers  and  other  services  can  be. 
There  is  no  way  of  acceptable  approach  to  Him,  but 
through  Christ,  who  is  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the 
life.  Unless,  therefore,  we  come  unto  God  by  him,  he 
is  not  able  to  save  us  to  the  uttermost  or  to  the  least  de- 
gree. All  Christ's  power  to  save  depends  upon  his 
atonement  and  obedience. 

3.  We  learn  why  it  is  that  Christ  never  prayed  for  all 
men  indefinitely.  The  fact  is  undeniable  ;  unless,  in- 
deed, you  choose  to  contradict  his  own  express  words  : 
"  I  have  manifested  thy  name  unto  the  men  which  thou 

gavest  me  out  of  the  world I  pray  for  them  ;  I 

pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast 
given  me — Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them 
also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word,"  John 
xvii.  6,  9,  20.  The  fact  of  Christ's  prayer  being  limited 


284  Christ's  claim 

to  and  for  those  whom  the  Father  gave  him,  and  to 
whom  he  grants  faith  to  believe,  being  plainly  undenia- 
ble, we  see  the  reason  of  it.  His  prayer  is  founded  on 
his  plea  of  right,  and  can  only  extend  as  far  as  his  plea. 
The  Father  gave  him  a  portion  "  out  of  the  world  ;"  the 
rest  of  the  world  or  race  of  men  he  left  to  their  own 
ways.  The  Son  "giveth  his  life  for  these  sheep ;" 
and  for  these  only  can  he  put  in  a  claim  of  right,  and  de- 
mand their  deliverance  from  death  and  hell  and  sin  :  to 
them  he  gives  eternal  life,  "and  this  is  life  eternal, 
that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  "  For  I  have  given  unto 
them  the  words  which  thou  gavest  me." 

If,  on  the  contrary,  Christ  should  pray  for  those  whom 
the  Father  never  gave  to  him  ;  whom  he  never  redeemed; 
to  whom  he  shall  say  "  depart  from  me,  ye  cursed  into 
everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels," 
then  it  could  not  be  said,  that  he  put  in  a  plea  and  a 
claim  of  right  for  them  :  it  could  not  be  said  "  him  the 
Father  heareth  always."  But  it  could  be  said — Jesus 
has  prayed  in  vain  :  he  has  advocted  the  cause  of  devils 
and  spirits  damned  and  lost  forever !  Will  any  man  af- 
firm it?  Dare  any  say  of  the  "Advocate  with  the  Fa- 
ther," that  he  undertook  a  bad  cause  and  failed  in  it?  If 
this  is  a  blasphemy  too  gross,  let  us  return  from  it  to 
the  plain  Bible  doctrine,  that  Christ  puts  in  a  plea  for 
his  people,  which  the  Father  admits,  and  a  claim  which 
he  grants. 

4.  We  learn  why  our  prayers  for  ourselves  and  for 
others,  are  often  not  heard.  They  are  inconsistent  with 
the  will  of  God  and  not  based  upon  the  atonement,  and 
do  not  of  course  go  up  perfumed  with  the  incense  of 
Christ's  intercession.  Every  prayer  offered  in  faith — 
that  is,  offered  to  God  in  the  exercise  of  a  real  and  true 
confidence  in  the  all  sufficiency  of  Christ,  is  and  shall  be 
answered,  in  substance,  if  not  in  the  form  we  may  have 
expected.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever 
ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it  you. 
Hitherto  have  ye  asked  nothing  in  my  name:  ask  and 
ye  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  full."  John  xvi, 
23,  24.     "  In  my  name,"  here,  cannot  surely  mean,  a 


FOR  HIS  PEOPLE.  285 

simple  sounding  of  the  word  Jesus  or  Christ.  But  it  is 
the  heart's  confidence  in  the  fulness  of  his  atoning  sac- 
rifice and  his  justifying  righteousness.  Now  this  con- 
fidence, trust,  faith,  is  a  grace  of  the  Spirit,  and  can  ex- 
ist only  in  the  soul  that  is  regenerated  and  united  in  fact, 
as  well  as  law,  with  Jesus  Christ.  "  Likewise  the  Spir- 
it also  helpeth  our  infirmities  :  for  we  know  not  what 
we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought,  but  the  Spirit  itself 
inaketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  cannot 
be  uttered." 

5.  It  will  be  repetition  but  I  call  it  up  for  distinct  re- 
membrance— Christ's  work,  viz  :  his  obedience  and 
death  are  the  basis  of  his  intercession. 

6.  The  sanctification  of  the  soul,  its  repentance,  new 
obedience,  faith,  regeneration;  all  are  consequences  of 
the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  that  Soul ;  and  this 
mission  is  a  consequence  of  Christ's  intercession :  and 
this  intercession  being  based  on  his  work  of  atonement ; 
therefore  the  whole  work  begins  at  the  altar.  Our  High 
Priest  offers  up  the  victim  ;  viz  :  himself;  he  taskes  the 
blood  into  the  most  holy  place  and  appears  now  in  heav- 
en for  us ;  he  presents  the  plea  of  his  own  obedience 
and  death,  and  on  that  founds  his  claim  to  his  people's 
release  from  sin,  death,  hell  and  the  grave;  the  Father 
sends  the  Spirit;  the  Spirit  restores  to  life  the  dead  soul, 
produces  faith,  repentance,  love  and  holy  obedience  ; 
we  ask  in  faith  and  our  joy  is  full. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

ON  SAVING  OR  JUSTIFYING  FAITH* 

The  connexion  which  the  sacred  scriptures  affirm 
everywhere,  between  faith  and  salvation,  very  fully  evin- 
ces the  importance  of  the  topic  upon  which  we  now  en- 
ter. "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved" — "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  ever- 
lasting life  ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not 
see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  Faith 
and  life,  unbelief — the  absence  of  faith  and  death.  How 
important  then  to  have  correct  views  of  its  nature  and 
operations. 

SECTION  I. 

Faith  as  a  General  Principle. 

That  all  men  believe  very  many  things — that  it  is  a 
law  of  man's  nature  to  repose  confidence  in  the  testimo- 
ny of  his  fellow  men,  is  so  perfectly  notorious,  as  to  re- 
quire no  argument  or  illustration. 

That  there  exists  in  the  mind  a  disposition,  a  habit, 
an  inclination  to  trust,  confide,  believe  in  testimony,  is 
equally  plain  and  undeniable.  That  this  disposition,  hab- 
it, inclination,  is  prior  to  the  respective  acts  of  believing, 
to  me  at  least,  appears  equally  plain  :  and  there  is  no 
difficulty  thrown  around  this  doctrine  of  a  habit  ox  prin- 
ciple of  faith  more  than  around  any  other  habit  or  prin- 
ciple of  action.  That  is,  prior  to  any  and  to  all  acts  of 
believing,  there  is,  in  the  constitution  of  the  mind  itself, 
a  something  which  adapts  it,  which  fits  it,  which  in- 
clines and  predisposes  it  to  put  forth  such  acts  of  be- 
lieving. 

Now  this  principle  of  faith  is  original  in  the  human 
mind.     That  is,  man  is  by  nature  inclined  to  believe 


FAITH  IN  ITS  PRINCIPLE.  287 

what  is  told  to  him.  It  is  not  an  acquired  habit,  but 
comes  into  the  world  with  him.  It  is  as  much  a  part  of 
his  nature  as  the  habit  of  body  by  which  he  is  inclined 
to  breathe  as  soon  as  he  is  ushered  into  life  :  or  as  the 
disposition  to  draw  his  nourishment  from  his  mother's 
breast,  or  to  reason,  or  be  excited  to  joy  or  sorrow. 
Without  this  principle  of  faith,  he  would  not  be  man  ; 
but  an  entirely  different  being.  He  could  never  believe 
— there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  faith  in  the  act — no 
such  thing  as  confidence  in  testimony — no  knowledge 
derived  from  this  source — no  human  society. 

It  is  the  more  important  to  be  well  settled  on  this 
point,  however  small  a  matter  and  however  clear,  it 
may  seem,  because  of  the  important  position  which  the 
opposite  sentiment  occupies  in  certain  systems  of  unbe- 
lief. By  an  assumption,  as  false  as  it  is  gratuitous,  in- 
fidelity has  attempted  to  remove  the  foundations  of  the 
Apostles  and  prophets.  The  false  assumption  is,  that 
faith,  or  the  disposition  to  rest  upon  testimony,  is  an 
acquired  habit  not  an  original  law  of  man's  nature. 
Believing  is  the  result  of  experience.  We  hear  a  testi- 
mony— some  man  tells  us  something;  we  subsequently 
ascertain  that  the  thing  is,  as  he  told  us  ;  we  rest  upon 
his  declaration,  with  a  small  measure  of  confidence. 
Again  he  testifies  to  another  and  another,  and  our  grow- 
ing experience  of  his  veracity,  is  the  measure  of  strength 
in  our  growing  habit  of  belief. 

Now  I  aver  this  to  be  contrary  to  universal  fact.  So 
far  from  belief  being  thus  the  product  of  experience, 
faith  in  human  testimony  is  natural  and  unbelief  is  the 
result  of  repeated  experience. 

Every  man  must  feel  within  himself  the  conscious- 
ness of  this  truth.  All  I  need,  is  simply  to  refer  him  to 
it.  He  at  once  accredits  the  declarations  of  others; 
and  finds  an  effort  to  be  continually  necessary  to  guard 
him  against  the  evils  of  too  hasty  a  belief.  Hence  the 
ease  with  which  children  and  inexperienced  persons — in- 
experienced in  the  duplicity  and  untruth  practised  by 
men  towards  one  another — are  duped  and  often  injured, 
through  their  unsuspicious  confidence.  Hence  the  pro- 
verbial credulity  of  little    children.      There    is  not    a 


288  FAITH  IN  ITS  PRINCIPLE. 

trait  of  their  character  more  prominent  than  this — their 
unreserved  confidence,  trust,  faith  in  testimony.  They 
at  first  believe  all  that  is  told  to  them.  So  thoroughly 
is  this  the  leading  characteristic  of  children  ;  that  we 
constantly  refer  to  them  as  illustrations  of  the  same 
quality  in  grown  persons.  A  man  is  disposed  to  believe 
all  he  hears, — we  say  of  him,  he  is  as  simple  as  a 
child. 

The  Saviour  who  "  knew  what  was  in  man,"  speaks 
of  this  same  law,  when  he  says,  "except  ye  be  convert- 
ed and  become  as  little  children" — that  is,  credulous  of 
all  their  fatiier  tells  them — believe  every  thing — "ye 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Faith  is  the 
door  of  entrance  into  it — he  that  believeth  is  saved — if 
ye  therefore  become  not  as  little  children  in  this  main 
feature  of  their  character,  ye  are  lost  and  undone.  But 
if  ye  exercise  toward  God  that  simple  confidence,  that 
firm  belief  which  a  child  reposes  in  its  father,  ye  are  the 
sons  of  God. 

Here  then,  we  rest  with  confidence.  The  principle 
of  faith  in  testimony  is  an  original  element  of  the  human 
constitution.  It  is  one  of  the  chief  avenues  to  knowl- 
edge. Indeed  it  is  the  main  avenue.  Almost  all  the 
knowledge  we  have,  has  entered  by  this  door.  Let  a 
man  draw  a  line  between  the  amount  of  knowledge  he 
posesses,  which  entered  his  mind  by  faith — i.  e.  for 
which  he  simply  trusts  in  the  veracity  of  others  ;  and 
that  which  he  has  independently  upon  testimony,  and 
how  insignificant  the  one  in  comparison  of  the  other  ? 
What  we  know  by  faith,  includes  the  entire  facts  of  his- 
tory— all  knowledge,  except  that  which  is  the  direct  re- 
sult of  personal  observation — which  is  original  with  the 
individual.  Reject  all  knowledge  obtained  by  faith,  and 
what  diminutive  pigmies  modern  infidels  would  then  be  ! 
Let  the  knowledge  breathed  into  them  by  the  breath  of 
testimony,  be  let  off,  and  the  baloon  of  their  vanity  would 
soon  collapse  into  a  very  insignificant  concern.  It  is 
rather  a  singular  fact,  that  the  infidel  philosophers,  who 
denying  this  primitive  law  of  mind,  should  be  more  es- 
pecially than  other  men,  dependent  on  the  faith  of  testi- 
mony for  their  knowledge  and  distinction.     Many  of  the 


FAITH  IN  GENERAL.  289 

most  popular  historians  are  infidels  :  and  it  seems  not  to 
have  occurred  to  them,  that  in  rejecting  or  attempting  to 
discard  faith,  because  of  its  important  influences  in  reli- 
gion, they  have  been  laboring  to  pull  down  the  pillars 
of  their  own  temple  of  fame. 

"  Their  folly  shall  be  known  to  all  men." 

(2.)  Perception  of  truth  secures  belief. — This  law  of 
the  human  understanding  is  arbitrary  and  absolute.  It 
is  not  optional — it  is  not  a  matter  of  choice,  whether  we 
believe  or  not.  When  the  mind  ;  that  is,  the  man — the 
person — when  I  perceive  a  thing  to  be  true,  I  have  no 
power  to  disbelieve  it.  If  it  were  otherwise — if  man 
had  a  power  to  withhold  his  belief  after  he  perceived  the 
truth  of  the  thing,  it  might  be  a  very  convenient  way  of 
obtaining  relief  in  times  of  trouble.  Why  should  a  man 
will  the  belief  of  that  which  gives  him  pain  ?  If  a  mere 
act  of  volition  could  regulate  our  belief,  disastrous  news 
would  have  a  remedy  at  hand.  The  fact,  however,  is 
far  different.  A  man's  belief  is  directly  and  necessarily 
as  the  perceptions  of  his  own  mind. 

Testimony,  or  the  affirmation  of  rational  agents,  is 
one  of  the  modes  by  which  the  mind  perceives  truth. 
We  speak,  indeed,  in  a  figure,  of  believing  the  testimony 
of  our  own  senses.  We  often  attribute  speech  and  in- 
telligence to  our  own  eyes  and  ears,  and  say  we  believe 
what  they  tell  us.  That  isr  the  senses  are  avenues  to 
knowledge  ;  and  what  is  conveyed  to  the  mind  through 
them,  we  rest  upon  as  truth.  This  confidence  or  rest- 
ing is  also  involuntary.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  choice 
whether  we  believe  or  not  in  the  reality  of  cold  that 
freezes  us ;  or  fire  that  burns  us.  The  same  law  holds 
good  as  to  the  testimony  of  our  fellow  men.  Our  con- 
fidence, trust,  reliance  upon  their  solemn  declaration,  is 
the  means  of  almost  all  the  knowledge  we  possess  ;  nor 
is  our  exercising  of  this  trust  a  voluntary  matter.  Our 
minds  are  so  constituted,  that  no  opposition  of  feelings 
and  desires  can  secure  a  state  of  distrust,  when  we  have 
clear  testimony  to  the  truth  of  any  thing.  We  often 
wish  we  could  disbelieve  what  we  hear,  but  in  vain. 
We  perceive  the  truth,  and,  according  to  the  clearness 
of  our  perception,  rest  or  rely  upon  it. 
25 


290  FAITH  IN  GENERAL. 

(3.)  For,  I  remark  again,  truth,  or  the  reality  of 
things,  is  that  to  which  the  mind  looks.  And  in  moral 
agents,  veracity,  or  that  quality  of  mind  which  prompts 
to  state  honestly  our  own  perceptions  of  truth,  is  the 
basis  of  our  confidence.  Exactly  as  we  discover  in  a 
witness  the  requisite  knowledge  of  the  thing  about 
which  he  testifies,  and  the  attribute  of  veracity,  so  will 
be  the  measure  of  our  faith  or  reliance  upon  his  tes- 
timony. Had  we  never  known  an  instance  of  preva- 
rication or  falsehood,  the  law  of  belief  would  have 
remained  unbroken,  and  men  would  always  believe 
every  testimony  delivered  to  them. 

(4.)  The  intellectual  and  moral  powers  of  man  have 
been  so  deranged  by  his  sin,  that  he  has,  in  his  fallen 
state,  no  faith  in  God ;  because  no  clear  and  correct  no- 
tions of  his  character,  his  law  and  his  government  ;  and 
in  this  alienated  state  he  ever  would  remain,  but  for  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  "The  natural  man  re- 
ceiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  &c."  This 
utter  inability  to  any  thing  good  has  been  fully  discuss- 
ed. The  bible  doctrine  most  plainly  is,  that  all  mankind 
are  by  nature  in  a  state  of  unbelief,  and  consequently  of 
death.  The  essential  requisites  to  a  true  faith,  viz  :  a 
spiritual  understanding — a  holy  vision  of  divine  things — 
a  view  of  God  as  the  sum  of  all  excellence — he  has  not, 
and  never,  without  supernatural  aid,  can  have.  A  relict 
of  the  original  law  of  belief  he  still  has,  as  of  all  the 
other  original  laws  of  mind  ;  and  this  enables  him,  in 
some  degree,  to  perceive  truth  and  veracity  in  his  fellow 
men,  as  to  the  affairs  of  this  life.  But  in  all  that  relates 
to  the  spiritual  world,  he  is  darkness  and  death. 

We  have  also  seen  that  this  want  of  capacity  to  know 
the  things  of  the  Spirit,  and  consequently  to  believe  the 
testimony  of  God,  in  his  law  and  in  his  gospel — for  the 
former  is  as  much  God's  testimony  as  the  latter — this 
incapacity  is  man's  sin,  and  not  his  apology.  This  pre- 
pares the  way  for, 


FAITH  A  DUTY.  291 

SECTION  II. 
Faith  in  God  is  a  duty. 

This  posiiion  must  be  viewed  in  a  twofold  aspect, 
viz  :  in  reference  to  the  twofold  division  of  the  divine 
testimony — the  law  and  the  gospel. 

1.  The  law  of  God  is  called  a  testimony  ;  inasmuch 
as  it  is  such  an  exhibition  of  his  perfections  as  is  calcu- 
lated and  intended  to  reprove  all  iniquity.  In  and  by  it 
God  testifies  or  bears  witness  to  his  own  glorious  per- 
fections, and  against  the  corruptions  of  the  race.  Hence 
the  two  tables  of  stone  on  which  its  summary  compend 
was  written,  are  called  his  testimony.  God  directs 
Moses,  Ex.  xxv.  21,  16.  "And  thou  shalt  put  the 
mercy  seat  above  upon  the  ark,  and  in  the  ark  thou  shalt 
put  the  testimony  that  I  shall  give  thee" — that  is,  the 
tables  of  the  law.  Ex.  xxxi.  18,  "  two  tables  of  testi- 
mony, tables  of  stone;  written  with  the  finger  of  God." 
Hsnco  th©  nrk,  in  which  this  sacred  deposit  was  laid  up, 
is  called  (Ex.  xli.  3)  "  the  ark  of  the  testimony" — and 
the  tabernacle,  the  tabernacle  of  testimony — and  of  wit- 
ness. 

Now  God  requires  man  to  accredit  this  testimony  of 
his  law  :  And  we  have  seen  that  its  obligation  is  per- 
petual :  no  man  can  ever  escape  from  it.  But  this  re- 
quirement embraces  not  simply  the  acknowledgment  of 
its  truth,  but  the  practical  acknowledgment.  He  who 
believes  the  declarations  of  God  in  his  law,  sets  to  his 
seal  that  God  is  true.  But  this  belief  must  be  a  practi- 
cal principle.  If  a  man  say  he  believes  the  wages  of  sin 
to  be  death  eternal,  and  yet  revels  in  iniquity,  the  latter, 
viz :  his  conduct  speaks  his  real  belief  in  opposition  to 
the  former.  He  contradicts  himself,  and  cannot  be 
believed.  But  if  a  man  professes  in  words  to  believe 
the  testimony — all  the  testimonies  of  God's  law,  and 
lives,  or  endeavors  to  the  utmost  to  live  and  act  agree- 
ably to  them,  his  actions  combine  with  his  words,  and 
shew  the  reality  of  his  belief. 

Thus  you  perceive,  how  unbelief  lay  near  the  root  of 


292  FAITH  A  DUTY. 

the  tree  forbidden — the  serpent's  temptation  is  the  insin- 
uation of  an  untruth — "  Ye  shall  not  surely  die:"  and 
the  original  sin  of  our  race  included  belief  in  the  lie. 

You  see  also  how,  enforcing  the  duties  of  the  law — 
the  belief  and  practice  of  this  part  of  God's  testimony, 
is  connected  with  and  leads  on  to  the  duties  of  the  gos- 
pel and  its  promises.  He  who  in  reality  believes  the 
truths  of  the  law,  will  try  to  practice  them.  He  will 
soon  find  his  awful  deficiency:  he  will  soon  tremble 
under  apprehension  of  its  terrific  denunciations.  He 
will  soon  cry  out  for  pardoning  mercy.  He  will  soon 
have  an  open  ear  to  the  invitations  of  grace  and  the  pro- 
mises he  will  soon  believe  to  the  saving  of  his  soul. 

2.  Thus  we  are  led  to  the  second  grand  division  of 
the  divine  testimony.  God  has  in  the  sacred  scriptures, 
revealed  his  will  concerning  the  salvation  of  the  lost. 
Having  enjoined  a  return  to  the  fullest  confidence,  trust 
and  obedience  to  God,  he  extends  his  testimony  in  the 
form  of  a  promise  of  life  and  salvation  to  every  repenting 
and  returning  rebel.  Now,  as  it  never  can  cease  to  be 
the  duty  of  man  to  confide  in  his  ATakpr.  thf  rpfusal  to 
return  is  sin:  as  we  have  before  seen.  Hence  the  con- 
stant connexion  of  the  mandate  with  the  j)romise,  "  be- 
lieve— and  thou  shalt  be  saved. V 

It  is  unnecessary  here,  to  dwell  upon  the  authorita- 
tive character  and  form  of  Christ's  teaching,  and  the  ob- 
ligations which  lie  upon  all  men  to  whom  he  sends  the 
message,  to  receive  it.  This  has  been  sufficiently 
evinced.  Every  where,  men  are  commanded  to  repent 
and  believe  the  gospel:  and  every  penitent  believer  has 
the  promise  of  salvation.  But  "  how  can  these  things 
be  ?"  If  the  views  already  given  of  man's  utter  incapa- 
city to  make  himself  a  new  heart,  repent  and  believe  in 
Christ,  be  correct,  what  mockery,  to  tell  a  man  he  shall 
be  saved  if  he  do  these  things,  and  yet  tell  him  he  can- 
not do  them  I     This  leads  us  to  another  position. 


SAVING  FAITH  A  GRACE.  293 

SECTION  III. 
Faith — saving  faith  is  a  grace. 

It  may  be  necessary  here  to  mark  a  distinction  be- 
tween gifts  and  graces.  Any  benefit  conferred  short  of 
salvation,  where  no  claims  of  right  to  it  existed,  is  a 
gift.  Thus  the  power  of  speaking  with  tongues,  wheth- 
er miraculously  or  not,  the  power  of  working  miracles, 
<fec.  all  of  which  fall  short  of  any  special  saving  change 
upon  the  persons,  are  gifts.  But  the  shedding  abroad 
of  the  love  of  God  in  the  heart,  is  a  grace.  True  spir- 
itual illumination — saving  repentance,  humility,  and 
all  the  deep  seated,  permanent  moral  virtues  of  the  re- 
newed mind,  are  graces.  A  grace  thus  includes  the 
idea  of  a  permanent  moral  benefit  resulting  to  us  from 
the  indwelling  Spirit  of  God:  whilst  a  gift  implies  only  a 
temporary  benefit.  This  is  the  commonly  received  dis- 
tinction. 

When  therefore  we  say,  saving  faith  is  a  grace,  we 
mean,  that  there  is  in  the  soul,  produced  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  a  holy  habit — an  abiding  fixed  principle  of  the 
spiritual  man,  constantly  leading  forth  the  soul  to  con- 
fide in  God:  so  that  whenever  his  testimonies  in  the  bi- 
ble are  presented,  the  mind  rests  upon  them.  The 
soul  perceiving  in  God,  the  testifier,  the  attribute  of  ve- 
racity, throws  the  weight  of  its  immortal  interests  into 
the  Redeemer's  hands.  "  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  a 
saving  grace,  whereby  we  receive  and  rest  upon  him 
alone  for  salvation."'  The  principle  is  thus  to  be  dis- 
tinguished, as  before,  from  its  particular  exercise  in  be- 
lieving. 

To  suppose  no  fixed,  permanent  principle,  is  to  sup- 
pose an  act  without  a  power  of  action — an  exercise 
without  power  called  into  exercise.  Some  singular  con- 
sequences would  follow,  if  faith  were  simply  and  only 
the  act  of  believing;  then  the  man  could  be  called  a  be- 
liever only  whilst  exercising  faith;  any  such  thing  as  a 
fixed  character,  he  could  not  possess.  Whereas  the 
bible  speaks  of  believers  in  quite  a  different  manner. 
25* 


294  OBJECTIONS. 

They  have  character,  stable  and  permanent:  and  are  not 
liable  to  be  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrines. 

Another  result  of  denying  faith  in  the  principle  or 
habit,  would  be,  that  there  could  be  no  growth  in  this 
grace.  There  could  be  no  strong  faith — no  babes  in 
Christ.  All  the  scriptures,  therefore,  that  contain  or 
suggest  the  idea  of  believers  advancing  in  gracious  at- 
tainment— all  prayers  for  increase  of  faith,  imply  the 
permanency  of  it  as  a  principle. 

The  origin  of  this  grace,  as  already  intimated,  is  to  be 
sought  in  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  im- 
possible to  believe  where  the  mind  has  no  evidence. 
This  is  true  equally  of  the  natural  and  of  the  gra- 
cious principle.  Until,  therefore,  the  mind  is  renovated, 
so  as  to  have  a  capacity  to  discern  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  it  is  not  possible,  it  can  perceive  the 
truths  of  his  testimonies.  Spiritual  illumination  is  an 
important  step  towards  the  resuscitation  of  the  principle 
of  faith. 

In  this  matter  our  knowledge  is  limited.  We  know 
not  how  it  is — or  what  it  is,  the  spirit  of  God  does  in 
the  regeneration  of  the  soul.  We  are  as  ignorant  here, 
as  we  are  in  the  matter  of  giving  sight  to  the  blind — or 
in  the  manner  of  vision  with  the  eyes  of  the  body. 
How  the  mind  perceives  by  the  natural  eye  we  cannot 
tell.  So  the  Spirit  does  something — he  that  was  blind, 
now  sees.  He  that  was  deaf  now  hears  God's  testi- 
mony— perceives  the  veracity  of  God — sees  the  truth  of 
the  testimonies  contained  in  the  law  and  in  the  gospel  : 
and  seeing  the  truth,  that  Christ  died  that  whosoever 
believeth  on  him,  should  not  perish,  he  sets  to  his  seal, 
that  God,  in  this  testimony,  is  true. 

SECTION  IV. 

Difficulties  and  objections. 

It  will  perhaps  have  occurred  to  you,  that  the  act  of 
believing,  if  it  be  involuntary,  can  have  no  moral  cha- 
racter. For  it  is  agreed  generally,  that  volition  is  ne- 
cessary to  a  moral  act.     The  act  which  is  done  without 


OBJECTIONS.  295 

design,  intention,  will,  choice,  cannot  be  said  to  be  good 
or  bad,  in  any  moral  sense  of  the  words.  Consequent- 
ly, believing,  if  it  necessarily  follows  the  perception  of 
truth,  is  without  moral  character. 

This  consequence  I  admit ;  but  only,  you  will  ob- 
serve, in  reference  to  the  act  of  believing  :  not  with  re- 
gard to  the  principle  or  habit  of  the  mind,  or  to  the  mo- 
tive which  induced  the  act.  The  possession  of  capacity 
to  perceive  spiritually  the  truth  of  God's  testimony,  is  a 
grace  and  a  moral  excellence  ;  and  the  weighing  of  mo- 
ral motives  and  yielding  to  the  stronger,  is  a  moral  vir- 
tue. We  thank  no  man  for  believing  that,  for  the  truth 
of  which  there  is  presented  to  his  mind  overwhelming 
evidence.  But  we  do  thank  him  for  his  patient  atten- 
tion, his  voluntary  exertion  of  his  powers  of  body  and 
of  mind,  whereby  we  have  been  enabled  to  present  to 
his  mind  the  evidence  of  the  truth  :  and  also  for  the  ex- 
pression of  his  belief.  The  court  which  pronounces  a 
sentence  in  my  favour  according  to  the  truth,  has  my 
gratitude  ;  but  for  what  ?  For  believing  my  cause  a 
just  one,  after  clear  proof  was  made  out?  Not  at  all.  But 
for  opening  their  eyes  and  ears  to  the  proof;  and  fl- 
uttering their  belief,  after  it  had  been  wrung  from  them, 
perhaps,  by  the  power  of  the  evidence.  On  the  contra- 
ry :  the  court  which  pronounces  against  me,  I  censure. 
For  what  ?  For  believing  according  to  the  evidence,  as 
it  actually  existed  in  their  minds  ?  By  no  means.  But 
for  their  prejudices,  which  prevented  their  seeing  the 
truth.  Their  indolence  or  their  wilful  ignorance,  which 
barred  the  entrance  of  truth  into  their  minds.  How 
much  morality'is  there  in  believing  the  truth  of  a  mathe- 
matical problem,  after  it  has  been  demonstrated  before 
your  eyes. 

If,  then,  it  be  asked  where  do  you  connect  moral  ac- 
countability with  believing ; — I  answer,  in  the  prepara- 
tory steps  toward  the  act  of  believing  ;  not  in  the  act 
itself.  To  give  moral  character  to  an  act,  we  have  seen 
it  is  requisite  that  it  be  voluntary — i.  e.  done  in  view  of 
motives  operating  upon  choice — and  that  the  motives  be 
such  as  to  call  into  action  the  moral  faculty,  viz  :  that 


296  OBJECTIONS. 

power   of  the   mind  by  which  we  judge  of  right   and 
wrong  :  in  other  words,  that  they  be  moral  motives. 

Now,  for  our  belief  we  are  morally  accountable  to  the 
whole  extent  to  which  we  have  had  a  voluntary  agency 
in  presenting  the  evidence  to  our  minds.     If  we  volun- 
tarily shut  our  eyes  against  the  light  of  truth,  and  thus 
are  led  to  believe  a  lie,  or  believe  things  to  be  as  they 
are  not,  it  is  sinful ;  but  the  sin  lies  not  in  the  immediate 
act  of  belief,  but  in  the   previous  neglect.     Every  man 
may  find  the  proof  of  this  in  his  own  bosom.    Who  has 
not  at  times  believed  a  thing  to  be  different  from  what  it 
really  is  ?     And  who  has  not  blamed  himself?     But  for 
what  ?     For  his  immediate  belief!     No.     In  that  he  is 
conscious  of  no  ill  intention,  and  yet  evil  has  resulted. 
But    he    censures    his    previous  neglect  of  the  proper 
means  to  inform  his  mind  correctly.      Those  means  lay 
within  his  reach.     He  had  only  to  will,  and  his  body 
would  have  carried  him   to  the  place  where  his  mind 
would  have  perceived  the  truth,  and  his  belief  have  been 
secured  in  rectitude.     Until,  therefore,  a  man  ceases  to 
have  power  to  use  means  for  attaining  knowledge,    he 
remains  accountable  for  his  belief.     He  who  voluntarily 
stays  away  from  the  place  where  he  knows  the  truth  of 
God  is   taught,  will  probably  be  sealed  up  in  the  belief 
of  a  lie,   and  then  be  punishable  for  that  belief.     This 
often  occurs  in  practice.     Absentees  from   public  wor- 
ship, very  often  hear  and  believe  incorrect  statements  of 
the  doctrine  taught,  and  find  mischief  and  trouble  result- 
ing.    Many  times  men  are  thus  absent,  simply  because 
of  the  peculiar  state  of  their  minds.     They  hear  truth 
preached  which  tends  to  destroy  their  false  peace,  or  to 
interfere  with  their  darling  lusts ;  and  conscience  seems 
to  them  disposed  to  force  upon  their  minds  the  belief  of 
them.     They  feel  uneasy  and  stay  away  ;  remain  igno- 
rant of  God's  salvation,    and  perish — "  they  shall  turn 
away  their  ears  from  the  truth,  and  shall  be  turned  unto 
fables."     2  Tim.  iv.  4. 

There  is  a  striking  analogy,  and  indeed  relation,  be- 
tween this  view  of  faith  and  the  point  of  its  connexion 
with  responsibility,  in  the  operations  of  conscience.  A 
man  does  what,  according  to  his  deliberate  conviction 


OBJECTIONS.  297 

and  best  judgment,  he  at  the  time  thinks  right: — he  per- 
secutes the  church  of  God — he  follows  therein  the  dic- 
tates of  his  conscience.  Is  it  right  for  him  to  do  so  ? 
Would  he  do  wrong  in  acting  contrary  to  his  conscience? 
Certainly  he  would  :  and  yet  his  conduct  on  the  whole 
is  wrong.  His  immediate  act  in  doing  a  wrong  thing, 
he  believing  it  to  be  right,  is  a  right  act,  because  his  mo- 
tive is  right,  viz  :  the  glory  of  God.  But  his  previous 
conduct,  in  not  putting  his  mind  in  possession  of  right 
knowledge,  and  presenting  right  motives,  all  this  is 
wrong.  The  transaction,  as  a  whole,  is  sinful,  but  the 
turpitude  lies  not  in  the  last  act,  it  lies  in  the  causes  of 
this  last  act.  Saul  of  Tarsus  neglected  and  refused, 
through  the  force  of  prejudice,  and  the  power  of  corrupt 
feelings,  to  put  himself  in  the  way  of  proper  influences  : 
he  blindfolded  conscience,  and  followed  the  blind  guide, 
until  mercy  removed  from  his  eyes  the  bandages  of  sin 
and  corruption  ;  and  conscience,  enlightened  by  grace, 
spoke  the  terror  of  truth  in  his' soul. 

(2)  Your  view  of  saving  faith  makes  the  faith  of  the 
gospel  a  duty  of  the  law  ;  so  that  life  eternal,  which  is 
connected  with  faith,  is  secured  to  the  sinner  by  a  duty 
of  law.  Believe  and  thou  shalt  be  saved..  Now,  if  to 
believe  is  a  duty,  and  the  sinner  is  active  in  believing, 
and  salvation  is  inseparably  connected  with  faith,  then 
how  can  you  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  salvation  is  de- 
pendent upon  works,  or  doing  a  duty?  Is  not  your  faith, 
or  the  principle  of  it,  the  very  same  as  that  which  Adam 
exercised  in  his  pristine  condition  ?  And  if  so,  are  you 
not  bringing  us  back  to  Adam's  covenant  ? 

Several  distinct  remarks  are  requisite  here.  (1.)  It 
is  true,  faith  in  its  principle  is  the  same  always — it  is 
trust,  reliance,  confidence,  resting  upon  the  testimony 
delivered,  for  the  truth  of  the  matter.  And  consequent- 
ly, its  particular  character  must  depend  upon  the  nature 
of  the  testimony  and  the  testifier.  So  long  as  Adam 
rested  on  God's  testimony,  "thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  lest 
ye  die,"  he  stood  safe  :  the  moment  he  transferred  his 
confidence,  trust,  resting  to  the  testimony  of  Satan,  "thou 
shalt  not  surely  die,"  he  fell.  Here,  as  always,  the  act 
is  characterised  by  the  motives  which  produced  it.    The 


298  OBJECTIONS. 

motives  to  eat  were  evil,  and  the  testifier  who  presented 
them  to  his  mind  was  evil,  and  the  result,  viz  :  Adam's 
belief  in  Satan  is  disbelief  in  God,  and  his  correspondent 
actions  were  all  evil. 

(2.)  My  design  is,  in  one  sense,  to  bring  you  back  to 
Adam's  covenant;  for  by  the  terms  of  it  only  can  man 
ever  be  saved.  Righteousness  and  life  are  connected, 
and,  we  have  seen,  to  nothing  also  is  life,  as  a  reward, 
promised  but  to  righteousness,  that  is,  obedience  to  law. 
But  this  obedience  to  law,  though  it  must  be  wrought  by 
man,  yet  cannot  ever  be  effected  by  mere  sinful  man. 
The  second  Adam,  and  he  onlv  can  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness,  and  secure  salvation  to  man.  His  gospel  is  a  re- 
medial law,  and  introduces  no  new  principle.  No  doubt, 
if  a  man  now  have  the  same  trust  and  confidence  in  God 
that  Adam,  before  his  fall,  had,  he  is  the  friend  of  God, 
and  God  will  own  him  as  such,  and  bless  him  accord- 
ingly. But  then,  this  neither  is  nor  can  ever  be  the 
case  with  any  sinner,  except  only  by  the  working  of  re- 
generation, ihe  venewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  by  which 
recreation  of  the  man  he  is  made  aliv©  in  Christ,  imrl  is 
interested,  in  fact,  in  all  the  merits  of  his  obedience,  and 
all  the  efficacy  of  his  atoning  blood. 

(3.)  The  objection  supposes,  that  faith  is  an  act  of 
the  believer,  and  an  act  only  :  whereas,  we  have  shewn, 
there  is  a  principle  or  habit,  which,  existing  in  the  mind 
as  a  governing  law  by  the  grace  of  God,  is  not  the  work 
of  man,  but  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  the  distinct  acts  of 
believing,  are  the  evidence  of  its  existence.  Now,  it  is 
not  the  distinct  acts  of  the  man,  or  of  the  principle  with- 
in him,  but  the  law  or  habit  of  {faith  itself,  that  unites 
us  to  Christ.  These  acts  are  the  fruits,  not  the  tree. 
They  evince  our  engrafting  into  Christ  (contrary  to  na- 
ture,) but  they  are  not  the  tree  engrafted,  and  whose  na- 
ture has  been  changed  by  the  operation.  Nor  yet  is  the 
engrafting  operation,  viz  :  the  Spirit's  work,  that  which 
entitles  the  believer  to  life.  On  the  contrary,  this  very 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  itself  an  effect  of  Christ's  merits. 
In  Christ  Jesus,  before  the  world  was,  every  saved  sin- 
ner was  chosen,  that  he  should  be  thus  engrafted  in  due 
time,  and  made  actually,  what  he  had  been  eternally  by 


OBJECTIONS.  290 

covenant,  a  member  of  Christ's  body.  "  By  grace  ars 
ye  saved  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is 
the  gift  of  God." 

(4.)  Therefore,  faith,  neither  in  the  principle  nor  in 
the  act,  is  the  meritorious  cause  of  salvation.  It  is 
merely  the  state,  habitual  and  occasional,  of  mind  and  of 
heart,  which  must  necessarily  exist  in  every  person  who 
is  renewed  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  an  effect  of  the 
Spirit's  work,  and  this  is  a  result  of  his  mission  ;  and 
his  mission  is  a  result  of  Christ's  merits  :  which  merits 
are  the  effectual  procuring  cause  of  salvation.  It  is  ma- 
nifestly, therefore,  incorrect  to  say  that  faith  secures  sal- 
vation: except  only  in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  com- 
manded to  make  our  calling  and  election  sure — i.  e.  sure 
to  ourselves — that  our  own  hearts  may  rest  and  have 
joy,  and  peace  in  believing.  But  the  salvation  is  secured 
and  made  certain,  by  the  merits  of  Christ :  and  these 
secure  faith,  as  well  in  its  first  principle  as  in  its  subse- 
quent growth.  "  Increase  our  faith,"  (Luke  xvii.  5,) 
said  the  disciples,  plainly  intimating  that  its  growth, 
and  how  much  more  its  original  germ,  depends  upon  di- 
vine grace. 

It  is  usual  to  speak  of  faith  as  the  instrumental  cause. 
of  salvation.  It  is  the  hand  that  receives  the  bread  of 
God.  But  neither  the  hand  nor  the  mouth  is  the  bread 
itself.  They  are  only  instruments.  Such  is  the  allu- 
sion in  the  Assembly's  catechism.  Faith — is  a  saving 
grace,  whereby  we  receive  and  rest  upon  Christ.  It 
is  not  the  act  of  receiving— but  the  gracious  habit,  prin- 
ciple, state  of  mind,  which  goes  forth  in  action — whereby 
we  receive  and  rest. 

3.  It  may  be  objected  to  the  foregoing  view  of  faith, 
that  it  can  scarcely  be  called  even  the  instrumental  cause 
of  salvation;  seeing  the  Holy  Ghost  acts  as  a  regenerating 
Spirit,  prior  to  the  exercise  of  faith.  This  is  evident 
from  the  allegation  that  the  faith  itself  is  the  work  of  the 
Spirit :  and  neither  the  habit  nor  its  act  can  be,  until  the 
soul  is  regenerated.  Consequently,  the  sinner  is  saved 
before  he  becomes  indeed  a  believer,  and  therefore  it 
must  be  improper  to  say  that  he  is  saved  by  faith. 

To  this  it  may  be  a  sufficient  response,  that  no  order, 


300  THE  APPROPRIATION 

as  to  time,  can  come  into  our  views.  We  cannot,  with 
propriety,  speak  of  regeneration,  faith,  repentance,  holi- 
ness &c,  as  having  any  chronological  order  of  existence. 
Regeneration  is  a  general  idea,  comprehending  all  the 
life  giving  movements  of  the  Spirit,  in  and  by  which  the 
dead  soul  is  made  alive;  the  unbeliever  a  child  of  faith; 
the  unholy,  a  holy  man.  &c.  &c.  But  whilst  there  is 
no  chronological  order — i.  e.  there  is  no  period  when 
it  can  be  said,  the  man  is  regenerated,  but  he  is  not  yet 
a  believer  ;  he  is  a  believer,  but  not  yet  penitent ;  he  is 
penitent,  but  not  yet  holy,  &c. ;  yet  is  there  in  the  na- 
ture of  these  graces  an  order  of  existence ;  first  life,  then 
the  attributes  or  qualities  of  life,  faith,  love,  holiness,  &c. 

SECTION  V. 
Of  the  appropriation  of  faith. 

By  appropriation  is  meant,  the  special  application  to 
himself,  by  the  believer  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death 
and  obedience.  And  it  has  been  made  a  question  wheth- 
er or  not,  this  special  application  belongs  to  the  nature 
of  saving  faith. 

For  an  intelligent  and  satisfactory  answer,  let  us  refer 
to  scripture.  And  here  it  must  be  conceded  by  all, 
that  the  command  to  believe,  is  not  special  but  general. 
Why  it  is  and  must  be  so,  we  have  already  seen.  Faith 
in  God  is  a  duty  of  the  law  of  nature  and  can  never  cease 
to  be  binding  upon  all  his  moral  creatures. 

But  (2)  The  promise  is  addressed  to  the  persons  be- 
lieving, and  is  special.  Hence,  the  language  of  the  Bi- 
ble, describing  the  exercise  of  faith,  consists  largely  of 
the  possessive  pronoun.  "  The  Lord  is  my  Rock,  and 
my  Fortress,  and  my  Deliverer ;  my  God,  my  Strength, 
in  whom  /  will  trust ;  my  Buckler,  and  the  Horn  of  my 
salvation,  and  my  high  Tower."  Psa.  xviii.  2.  "Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God."  "  I  know,"  said  Job, 
"  that  my  Redeemer  liveth."  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the 
Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."  "  God  is  the  strength  of 
my  heart  and  my  portion  forever."  "  He  loved  me  and 
gave  himself  for  ?ne."     "Being  justified  by  faith,  we 


0*   FAITH.  301 

have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
Thomas  said,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God."  "  He  is  my 
God,  and  I  will  prepare  him  a  habitation,  my  father's 
God,  and  I  will  exalt  him."  Ex.  xv.  2.  "  He  laid  down 
his  life  for  ws."  And  a  thousand  other  passages  might 
be  adduced  of  a  similar  kind — all  shewing  that  saving 
faith  takes  to  itself  Christ  and  all  the  benefits  of  his 
work.  It  appropriates  and  makes  its  own  the  promises 
which  are  addressed  to  believers. 

(3)  This  appropriation  is  a  leading  and  distinguish- 
ing characteristic  of  that  faith  which  saves  :  distinguish- 
ing it  from  that  which  does  not  save.  That  there  is  a 
dead  faith  is  obvious — that  is,  a  naked  assent  to  the 
truth.  "  The  devils  believe  and  tremble."  They  per- 
ceive as  intellectual  beings,  and  know  and  believe  that 
Christ  died  to  save  men.  Wicked  men  believe  the  lead- 
ing facts  of  the  gospel,  i.  e.  their  minds  perceive  the 
truth  and  are  constrained  to  assent  to  it.  But  the  faith 
of  devils  and  lost  men,  has  no  appropriating  attribute  in 
it.  "I  know  thee,"  said  the  demon,  "who  thou  art, 
the  holy  one  of  God" — but  he  did  not  appropriat3  to 
himself  the  merits  of  Christ.  His  belief  of  the  truth  was 
unconnected  with  any  realizing  views  of  a  saving  inter- 
est in  it — he  could  not  say  "  thou  art  my  Rock."  And 
this,  because  no  change  had  been  effected  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  moral  man.  '"  ie  enmity  had  not  been 
slain — love  had  not  been  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  There  was  no  attraction  of  his  spirit 
toward  Christ. 

The  blessings  of  salvation  are  represented  as  a  balm, 
and  the  administrator  as  a  physician.  "  Is  there  no 
balm  in  Gilead,  is  there  no  physician  there  ?"  Now, 
the  medicine  will  not  heal  unless  it  be  applied.  Faith 
applies  or  appropriates  the  healing  balm.  The  same 
characteristic  is  taught  in  the  sacrament  of  the  supper. 
The  bread  and  wine  represent  Christ.  The  application 
of  a  portion  to  himself,  by  the  communicant,  represents 
the  appropriation  of  faith.  As  the  hand  and  the  mouth 
make  this  bread  and  wine  my  own  actually,  so  faith 
makes  Christ  and  his  benefits  mine  actually.  They 
were  before,  mine  virtually,  by  deed  of  gift  from  God  in 
26 


302  THE  OBJECT  OF    FAITH. 

Christ ;  but  they  now  are  mine  in  fact — in  actual  pos- 
session. In  all  this,  it  will  be  seen,  reference  is  still 
had  to  faith  in  its  act—the  working  of  that  holy  princi- 
cle  implanted  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Such 
acts  bespeak  their  cause  in  the  renewed  mind  and  evince 
the  presence  of  the  life  giving  Spirit. 

SECTION  VI. 

The  object  of saving  faith :  or  the  precise  thing  which 

is  believed. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  question  of  appropria- 
tion, is  that  of  the  precise  matter  appropriated.  In 
other  words,  the  exact  thing  which  is  to  be  believed  for 
salvation.  What  say  the  scriptures  ?  "  And  this  is  the 
record — the  testimony — that  God  hath  given  to  us  eter- 
nal life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son,  1  John  v,  11.  "God 
so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him,  should  not  perish  but 
have  everlasting  life."  •*  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  The  precise  thing 
then,  which  we  are  called  on  to  believe,  is  that  there  is 
salvation  in  Christ  for  all  that  receive  and  rest  upon 
and  trust  in  him.  In  other  words,  that  Christ's  atone- 
ment has  cancelled  the  claims  of  law  against  all  believ- 
ing penitents:  and  that  his  righteousness  is  all  sufficient 
for  them,  as  their  title  to  eternal  life.  It  is  the  precise 
province  of  saving  faith  to  receive  and  rest  upon  Christ 
in  these  two  parts  of  his  work.  It  recognizes,  in  his 
blood,  the  price  of  redemption  for  lost  men  and  in  his 
obedience,  the  title,  according  to  Gods  covenant  with  the 
first  Adam,  of  the  believer  to  life  eternal :  and  it  applies 
these  to  itself.  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God 
hath  the  testimony  in  himself."  His  mind,  by  God's 
enlightening  Spirit,  is  enabled  to  see  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel  promise,  and  can  be  "no  longer  faithless  but  be- 
lieving," and  exclaims,  "My  Lord  and  my  God."  It  is 
obvious  therefore,  that  saving  faith  is  not  merely  "a  be- 
lief of  the  truth."  This  belief  exists  as  strong  in  hell  as 
in  heaven  or  on  earth.     The  convinced  sinner,  that  is, 


ASSURANCE  OF  FAITH.  303 

the  man  who  is  enabled  to  perceive  and  believe  the 
truth  of  God's  testimony  in  the  law,  "  not  only  assent- 
ethto  the  truth  of  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  butreceiveth 
and  resteth  upon  Christ  and  his  righteousness,  therein 
held  forth."  This  receiving  and  resting  are  acts  of 
the  living  principle  of  faith.  The  mind  or  soul,  having 
been  enlightened  in  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel  plan, 
so  as  to  perceive  the  perfect  satisfaction  of  Christ's 
atonement,  and  the  fulness  of  his  righteousness,  throws 
itself  upon  them — rests  in  them  as  the  only  sure  founda- 
tion. The  precise  thing  believed  is,  manifestly,  that 
testimony  of  God  which  declares  that  Christ  wrought 
out  this  righteousness,  or  obeyed  the  law;  and  perfected 
this  atonement,  or  made  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  for 
his  people.  And  the  moment  the  mind  thus  rests, 
trusts,  appropriates  this  Savionr,  the  benefits  of  his 
death  and  obedience  begin  to  be  experienced. 

SECTION  VII. 

Is  assurance  of  the  essence  of  saving  Faith  ? 

This  question  has  been  agitated  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, and  has  divided  those  who  agree  in  almost  the  en- 
tire system  of  divine  truth.  It  is  therefore,  highly  pro- 
bable, that  an  accurate  definition  and  understanding  of 
the  term,  would  settle  the  question.  Let  us  then  see 
what  is  the  scripture  meaning  of  it.  This  must  govern 
us.  In  our  English  Bibles  it  occurs  but  seven  times, 
viz  : 

Deut.  xxviii.  66.  Moses  depicting  the  evils  of  the 
Jews'  apostacy — tells  them  that  "  among  the  nations 
shalt  thou  find  no  ease.  And  thy  life  shall  hang  in 
doubt  before  thee;  and  thou  shalt  fear  day  and  night ; 
and  shalt  have  none  assurance  of  thy  life."  The  con- 
dition of  the  seed  of  Abraham  for  eighteen  centuries,  is 
a  very  clear  comment  on  the  meaning  of  the  term  assur- 
ance. Theirs  is  a  condition  of  doubt,  uncertainty, 
anxiety,  and  consequently  of  comparatively  small  en- 
joyment.    The  opposite  is  a  state  of  assurance.     The 


304  ASSURANCE  OF  FAITH, 

mind  rests  in  safety,  and  confidence,  free  from  perplex- 
ing and  distracting  cares  and  tormenting  anxieties. 

Assurance,  then,  is  trust,  confidence,  leaning  upon 
that  which  is  expected  to  sustain;  Cant,  viii,  5.  "Who 
is  this  that  cometh  up  from  the  wilderness,  leaning 
upon  her  Beloved.  Its  effects  are  peace  and  quietness; 
Isaiah,  xxxii,  17,  speaking  of  the  blessedness  of  the  full 
gospel  day,  when  "the  Spirit  be  poured  upou  us  from 
on  high" — marks  the  consequences  of  this  effusion,  in 
the  general  distribution  of  justice  between  man  and 
man.  "And  the  work  of  righteousness,  shall  be  peace  ; 
and  the  effect  of  righteousness,  quietness  and  assurance 
forever."  Here  again  assurance  is  that  state  of  the 
mind,  wherein  trust  and  confidence  are  placed  on  an  un- 
failing dependence  ;  and  it  is  a  result  of  the  Spirit's 
presence. 

In  Acts,  xvii,  31,  the  assurance  which  God  is  said  to 
have  given  to  all  men,  of  the  resurrection  and  judgement 
is  the  pledge  of  fidelity — affording  to  all  men  faith — 
giving  them  sufficient  ground,  in  the  fact  of  Christ's  re- 
surrection, to  believe  the  doctrine. 

The  other  cases  in  which  the  word  assurance  occurs, 
are  entirely  different  from  the  last,  as  to  the  original 
term.  It  is  translated  once  assurance  :  1  Thes.  i,  5, 
but  in  connexion  with  a  term  which  rendered  the  usual 
translation  difficult.  "  Our  gospel  came  unto  you — in 
much  assurance" — whereas  the  word  is  in  the  other 
places  rendered  full  assurance.  Col.  ii,  2 — "full  as- 
surance of  understanding."  Heb.  vij  11 — "We  desire 
that  every  one  of  you  do  shew  the  same  diligence, 
to  the  full  assurance  of  hope,  unto  the  end,"  and  x,  22. 
"  Let  us  draw  near,  in  full  assurance  of  faith."  This 
full  assurance,  says  Owen,  is  a  "  sure,  stable,  firm, 
certain  faith,  or  persuasion."  The  order  ought  to  be 
noted.  There  is  a  "full  assurance  of  understanding  :" 
Here  the  reference  is  to  the  bright  beaming  in  of  truth 
upon  the  mind,  by  the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Then  there  is  "  a  full  assurance  of  faith;"  as  a  conse- 
quent of  the  former  :  the  mind  sees  the  promises  afar 
off,  or  near,  and  is  persuaded  of  them  and  enabled  to 
embrace  them.     Then  comes   a  full  assurance  of  hope 


HOPE  AND  SENSE.  305 

— that  measure  of  confidence  which  gives  joy  and 
peace.  Hope  is  the  daughter  of  faith  and  the  parent  of 
joy,  so  far  as  joy  results  from  distant  objects.  It  im- 
plies the  previous  maturity  and  full  strength  of  faith. 
Faith  takes  a  vigorous  hold  upon  the  promise  or  pledge 
of  veracity;  hope  springs  forward  upon  the  thing  pro- 
mised. Faith  builds  her  house  upon  the  foundation 
stone;  hope  takes  up  her  abode  in  the  habitation  and 
blesses  the  whole  household.  Faith  looks  back  upon 
Calvary  and  the  cross  ;  hope's  bright  eye  is  turned  for- 
ward upon  Paradise  and  the  crown. 

Assurance  then,  is  a  resting  and  confiding  of  the 
mind  and  heart  in  Christ  as  the  ground  of  its  hope ;  and 
is  but  another  name  for  faith  itself.  Accordingly,  as 
we  have  a  strong  and  a  week  faith  ;  so  we  have  assur- 
ance and  a  full  assurance.  But  it  ought  to  be  distinctly 
observed,  that  true  faith  in  us  and  our  knowledge  of  its 
presence,  are  distinct  things.  The  Spirit  of  God,  who 
by  his  mighty  power,  giveth  us,  in  the  behalf  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  believe  in  him,  does  not  instantly  give  us  a 
knowledge  of  that  operation.  The  assurance  of  the 
mind  must  have  a  reflex  influence  in  order  to  our  sensi- 
ble experience  of  it  and  knowledge  by  experience. 
This  suggests  the  distinction,  long  since  made  and  ap- 
plied with  advantage  in  this  discussion. 

"  The  assurance  of  faith  is  a  firm  persuasion  of  God's 
love  to  us,  founded  on  his  promise  ;  the  assurance  of 
sense  is  a  persuasion  that  we  have  already  tasted  of  his 
love  :  Heb.  xi.  1,  13.  1  John  v.  9,  10,  20."  Brown's 
catechism,  Qu.  36.  "  Faith  is  the  substance  of  things 
hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  "  These 
all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the  promises, 
but  having  seen  them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of 
them,  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were 
pilgrims  and  strangers  on  the  earth."  These  present 
faith  in  its  form  of  assurance. 

"  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God,  hath  the  wit- 
ness in  himself.  We  know  that  we  have  passed  from 
death  unto  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren."  Here 
is  the  assurance  of  sense :  our  experience  teaches  us 
that  a  change  has  taken  place  within  us.  The  former  is 
26* 


306  ASSURANCE. 

perhaps  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same  thing,  which  some 
express  by  the  direct,  the  latter  the  reflex  exercise  of 
faith. 

"  It  would  greatly  conduce,"  says  a  public  document 
from  the  eloquent  pen  of  the  late  Doctor  Mason,  (see 
works,  iii.  332.)  "  It  would  greatly  conduce  to  clear 
views  of  this  subject,  were  the  distinction  between  the 
assurance  of faith  and  assurance  of  sense,  rightly  under- 
stood and  inculcated.  When  we  speak  of  assurance  as 
essential  to  faith,  many  suppose  we  teach  that  none  can 
be  real  christians  who  do  not  feel  that  they  have  passed 
from  death  unto  life,  and  have  not  unclouded  and  tri- 
umphant views  of  their  interest  in  Christ,  so  as  to  say, 
under  the  manifestations  of  his  love,  "  My  beloved  is 
mine,  and  I  am  his*."  But  God  forbid  that  we  should 
thus  offend  against  the  generation  of  his  children.  That 
many  of  them  want  such  assurance  may  not  be  ques- 
tioned. This,  however,  is  the  assurance,  not  of  faith, 
but  of  sense  ;  and  vastly  different  they  are.  The  object 
of  the  former  is  Christ  revealed  in  the  word  ;  the  object 
of  the  latter,  Christ  revealed  in  the  heart.  The  ground 
of  the  former  is  the  testimony  of  God  without  us  ;  that 
of  the  latter,  the  works  of  the  Spirit  within  us.  The 
one  embraces  the  promise,  looking  at  nothing  but  the  ve- 
racity of  the  promiser  ;  the  other  enjoys  the  promise  in 
the  sweetness  of  its  actual  accomplishment.  Faith  trusts 
for  pardon  to  the  blood  of  Christ ;  sense  asserts  pardon 
from  the  comfortable  intimations  of  it  to  the  soul.  By 
faith  we  take  the  Lord  Jesus  for  salvation  ;  by  sense  we 
feel  that  we  are  saved,  from  the  Spirit's  shining  on  his 
own  gracious  work  in  our  hearts. 

"  These  kinds  of  assurance,  so  different  in  their  na- 
ture, are  very  frequently  separated.  The  assurance  of 
faith  may  be,  and  ofien  is,  in  lively  exercise,  when  the 
other  is  completely  withdrawn.  "  Zion  said,  My  Lord 
hath  forgotten  me;  and  the  Spouse,  "  My  beloved 
hath  withdrawn  himself  and  was  gone.'"'  "  He  may 
be  a  forgetting  and  withdrawing  God  to  my  feelings,  and 
yet  to  my  faith  my  Lord  and  my  God  still."  This  case 
is  accurately  described  by  the  prophet:  "  Who  is  among 
you  that  fear eth  the  Lord,  that  obeyeth  the  voice  of  his 


UNION  WITH  CHRIST.  307 

servant,  that  walketh  in  darkness  and  hath  no  light  ? 
Let  him  trust  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  stay  upon 
his  God."  Here  the  believer,  one  who  fears  the  Lord, 
is  supposed  to  be  absolutely  destitute  of  sensible  assu- 
rance, for  he  ivalhs  in  darkness  and  hath  no  light ;  yet 
he  is  required  to  exercise  the  assurance  of  faith  by 
trusting  in  the  Lord  and  staying  upon  his  God." 

SECTION  VIII. 
How  the  saved  are  united  actually  to  Christ. 

It  has  been  said,  that  faith  is  the  bond  of  union  with 
the  Redeemer,  and  thus  the  instrumental  cause  of  sal- 
vation. This,  I  conceive,  is  true  or  not,  just  as  faith  is 
understood  of  the  act  or  of  the  principle.  If  by  faith  be 
meant  the  act  of  believing,  viewed  as  man's  act,  the 
sentiment  is  erroneous  ;  for  it  makes  the  standing  and 
safety  of  the  sinner  dependent  upon  his  own  act.  Be- 
cause manifestly  the  branch  must  continue  in  connexion 
with  the  tree,  or  its  vitality  must  cease.  If,  therefore, 
that  connexion  is  dependent,  not  on  God,  but  on  man's 
act,  man  and  not  God  must  have  the  glory,  at  least,  of 
perseverance  in  grace. 

If  by  faith  be  meant  the  principle  of  holy  trust  and 
confidence  in  God's  testimony, — which  principle,  be  it 
remembered,  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration, 
and  is  kept  alive  in  the  soul  by  His  continued  residence 
and  sanctifying  influences  there,  then  it  is  true.  This 
is  saying,  in  other  words,  that  the  Spirit  is  the  bond  of 
union  with  Christ.  "He  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord 
is  one  spirit,"  (1  Cor.  vi.  17.)  "For  by  one  Spirit  are 
we  all  baptized  into  one  body,"  (12  :  13.)  Hence  the 
duty  of  endeavouring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  bond  of  peace  :  "  There  is  one  body  and  one 
Spirit."  And  of  this  body  Christ  is  the  head,  and  the 
fact  of  membership  consists  in  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  "  For  he  that  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
is  none  of  his."  It  is,  therefore,  more  directly  and  obvi- 
ously true,  to  affirm  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in 
the  hearts  of  his  people,  as  in  his  temple,  is  the  bond  of 


308  IMPUTATION  APPLIED, 

union,  than  to  assert  that  faith  is  that  bond.  Faith  in 
the  principle,  being  a  result  of  the  Spirit's  powerful  pre- 
sence, can  exist  only  where  there  is  union  with  Christ, 
and  is  evincive  rather  than  productive  of  such  union. 
And  the  goings  out  of  this  faith  in  acts  of  holy  confi- 
dence in  God  our  Saviour,  become  the  evidence  of  that 
great  change  called  regeneration. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  here  as  elsewhere.  Mutual  con- 
sent creates  moral  union.  In  the  matter  of  faith,  volition 
is  concerned.  The  mind  and  heart,  which  were  at  enmi- 
ty with  God,  are  now  renewed.  The  will  is  turned  to 
holiness.  The  man  chooses  God  as  his  portion.  There  is 
as  perfect  volition  here  as  is  possible  ;  and  consequent- 
ly, the  soul's  consent  to  this  moral  union  is  secured, 
and  the  union  is  complete.  Thus  in  the  marriage  rela- 
tion. It  is  the  mutual  consent  of  the  parties,  lawfully 
and  intelligently  given,  that  makes  them  one  for  the  pur- 
poses specified ;  that  is,  within  the  limits  of  their  con- 
sent. But  this  unity  of  will  and  sentiment,  in  the  spi- 
ritual matrimony,  is  the  work  of  God's  Spirit ;  and 
whenever  these  exist  the  union  is  consummated.  Thus 
also,  in  all  the  various  associations  of  men,  for  all  kinds 
and  descriptions  of  purposes,  mutual  consent  creates 
moral  union.  So  true  is  it,  that  not  a  single  principle 
admitted  by  the  mere  moralist  into  his  system,  stands 
independently  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible.  Morality  is 
the  application  of  religious  truth  to  the  government  of 
human  society.  Thus  union  with  Christ  is  effected  by 
the  Spirit.  Covenant  union,  we  have  seen,  is  from  eter- 
nity: but  actual  union  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost  dwelling  in 
us,  and  working  faith  in  us. 

SECTION  IX. 

The  doctrine  of  Imputation  applied. 

We  have  seen,  that  imputation  is  the  legal  charging  to 
an  individual,  of  his  own  act,  or  of  another's  act:  or  the 
holding  of  him  responsible  in  law  for  it ;  and  that  whether 
the  results  may  be  beneficial  or  not.  Imputing  is  account- 
ing a  person  responsible  in  law  for  an  act.     And  where 


IN  JUSTIFICATION.  309 

ihe  act  is  not  his  own,  imputation  is  based  upon  some 
existing  legal  connexion  between  him  and  the  person 
whose  own  act  it  is. 

Attempts  are  often  made  to  confuse  the  subject,  by 
representing  the  impossibility  of  a  transfer  of  actions. 
The  act  of  one  man  can  never  become  the  act  of  another 
man.  Such  attempts,  if  not  a  result  of  ignorance,  flow 
from  some  worse  source.  It  might  be  known — for  the 
means  of  knowing  it  have  been  spread  all  over  the  dis- 
cussions of  Calvanistic  writers, — it  ought  to  be  known, 
that  imputation  is  not  the  transfer  of  acts,  but  of  legal 
responsibilities. 

Equally  absurd,  and  as  perversely  absurd,  is  also  the 
view  sometimes  held  up  of  this  doctrine,  that  it  is  a 
transfer  of  moral  character.  It  is  a  melancholy  proof 
of  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  (which  some  of 
those  persons  deny,)  when  men  insist  that  the  advocates 
of  imputation  teach  a  transfer  of  moral  character- — that 
the  moral  character  of  the  sinner  is  conferred  on  Christ, 
and  he  becomes  a  corrupt  sinner.  On  the  contrary,  he 
is  holy;  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  he  assumes  his  people's 
legal  responsibility,  and  fulfils  all  law  for  them.  Now 
imputation  is  God's  reckoning,  or  setting  down  to  the 
account  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  believer,  all  that  Christ, 
as  his  surety,  has  done  for  him,  viz  : 

(1)  The  fulness  of  his  satisfaction  rendered  to  divine 
justice.  When  Jesus,  as  his  people's  advocate,  presents 
evidence,  to  God  the  Father,  of  himself  having  suffered 
for  them  the  full  and  entire  demand  of  the  law,  the  Fa- 
ther reckons,  or  sets  it  down  to  them  as  a  complete  and 
full  satisfaction.  This  secures  to  them  pardon.  Christ 
has  a  right,  and  claims  their  deliverance  from  death  and 
all  other  legal  consequences  of  sin.  Pardon  is  passing 
by  a  transgressor  of  law  without  punishment.  It  is  an 
act  of  sovereignty.  In  human  governments  it  always 
implies  a  sacrifice,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  claims  of 
justice.  But  here,  both  justice  and  mercy  meet.  Justice 
has  its  satisfaction  in  Christ's  death  :  and  mercy  from 
Christ  freely  forgives.  The  sinner  himself  has  no  right 
to  have  the  prison  door  thrown  open,  and  to  be  set  at 
liberty ;  but  Christ,  his  Friend  and  Surety,  has   such 


310  IMPUTATION— JUSTIFICATION. 

right,  and  doth  exercise  it.  Thus  is  pardon  secured,  and 
thus  is  it  conferred.  It  is  the  province  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  give  to  the  believer  a  realizing  sense  of  this  pardon, 
and  when  this  is  done,  the  soul  rejoices  with  joy  un- 
speakable. 

Now  we  ought  to  distinguish  between  this  and  justifica- 
tion. I  know,  indeed,  great  efforts  have  been  made  to  con- 
found them,  and  great  success  has  attended  these  efforts. 
But  I  know  that  just  in  the  same  proportion  have  indis- 
tinct and  often  erroneous  views  been  entertained — views, 
which,  if  run  out  to  their  legitimate  results,  land  in  ruin. 
Therefore  do  I  the  more  insist,  that  pardon  is  not  justi- 
fication. It  is  an  accompaniment  of  it  in  man's  condition, 
but  is  not  the  thing  itself.  To  declare  a  man  innocent, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  a  different  thing  from  declaring  him 
righteous.  A  mere  negative  virtue  is  really  no  virtue 
at  all.     Therefore, 

(2)  The  setting  down  or  reckoning  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness, all  his  acts  of  obedience  to  the  law,  to  the 
account  of  the  believer,  is  the  precise  matter  which  se- 
cures justification.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the 
believer's  in  the  book  of  God's  account.  There  it  stands 
for  his  benefit.  He  is  righteous  in  the  law's  eye.  The 
judge  perceives  the  fact,  and  declares  it  so  to  be.  This 
declaration  is  the  precise  thing  meant  by  justification. 
It  is  the  judicial  and  declarative  act,  which  results,  by  an 
inevitable  necessity,  existing  in  the  nature  of  law  and  of 
justice,  and  in  the  facts  of  the  case.  The  sinner's  heart 
is  changed  ;  he  believes  in  God  and  his  Christ;  he  ap- 
propriates to  himself  Christ  and  the  benefits  of  his  death 
and  obedience  ;  Christ,  his  Advocate,  makes  this  appear 
before  the  presence  of  the  Father  ;  shews  that  entire  re- 
stitution has  been  made  to  the  violated  law — that  a  full 
and  perfect  obedience  has  been  rendered  to  the  precept; 
and  that  these  are  made  over  to  this  sinner, — are  his  ; 
the  Father  reckons  them  accordingly  ;  they  are  so  view- 
ed, and  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  pronounces  a  sentence 
according  to  law,  averring  the  fact  that  this  sinner  is  en- 
titled to  eternal  life. 

Thus  is  confirmed  and  forever  established,  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  original  Institute,  that  obedience  and  life,  dis- 


THE  JUSTIFIED  ARE  SAFE.  311 

obedience  and  death,  are  inseparably  connected.  And 
thus  the  remedial  law  of  the  second  covenant  triumphs 
over  the  ruins  of  the  first. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

JUSTIFICATION  SECURES  ITS  SUBJECTS  FOREVER. 

In  chapter  IV,  we  settled  the  general  notion  of  the 
term  Justification:  see  p.  80.  It  is  the  act  of  a  Judge 
declaring  the  fact,  that  the  subject  of  law  has  obeyed  the 
law,  and  is  consequently  entitled — he  has  a  right,  to 
the  reward  of  his  obedience.  The  Judge  pronounces 
the  man  righteous  and  declares,  that,  by  a  necessary 
consequence,  the  thing  promised  as  the  reward  of  right- 
eousness, he  is  entitled  to  receive. 

In  Chapter  XX  we  have  just  seen,  that  this  judi- 
cial act  occurs  at  the  moment  in  which  the  sinner  be- 
comes a  believer,  by  the  Spirit  of  God  working  faith  in 
him,  and  thereby  uniting  him  to  Christ.  This  union 
with  Christ,  by  the  indwelling  Spirit,  confers  actually 
upon  the  believer,  an  interest  in  the  entire  merits  and 
efficiency  of  the  Redeemer's  work.  This  consists  of 
two  parts,  viz:  his  sufferings— -or  satisfaction  to  the  pe- 
nal claims  of  law,  and  his  righteousness,  or  active  fulfil- 
ment of  the  entire  precepts  of  law.  The  former  of  these, 
secures  the  believer  from  the  curse  of  the  law.  Its 
sentence  "thou  shalt  surely  die,"  cannot  in  justice  be 
executed  upon  the  sinner's  Surety,  and  also,  upon  him- 
self. Hence,  by  a  necessity  existing  in  the  very  nature 
of  moral  government,  it  must  follow,  that  the  sinner  be 
pardoned  :  that  is,  the  punishment  which  was  due  to 
him  for  sin,  is  not  inflicted  upon  him ;  he  is  released 
from  punishment  and  from  liability  to  punishment. 
The  latter,  viz :  Christ's  active  obedience — the   whole 


312  THE  JUSTIFIED. 

of  what  he  has  done  to  fulfil  the  law  and  honour  its 
precepts,  being  now  reckoned  to  the  account  and  bene- 
fit of  the  believer,  constitutes  his  righteousness,  and  en- 
titles him  to  life  eternal.  The.  declaration  of  this  fact, 
by  the  Judge,  is  Justification;  and  he,  who  is  thus  ac- 
cepted in  the  beloved,  stands  complete  in  him.  Eternal 
justice  has  pronounced  her  fiat :  immutable  judgement 
has  recorded  her  sentence  :  and  He,  the  habitation  of 
whose  throne  is  justice  and  judgement,  seals  it  up  for- 
ever.    "I  will  never  leave  thee  nor  forsake  thee." 

To  evince  the  perfect  stability  of  God's  people,  a  few 
remarks  will  be  sufficient. 

1.  Their  pardon  and  justification  have  regard  porely 
to  legal  relations.  They  respect  the  condition  in  which 
they  stand  to  the  law  and  government  of  God — their  re- 
lative position  in  the  Divine  administration.  "There 
is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are 
in  Christ  Jesus."  Once  there  was  condemnation  to 
those  persons,  so  that  it  was  said  of  them,  "ye  are  con- 
demned already;"  but  now — -after  their  .  has  united 
them  to  Christ — there  is  no  condemn  They  are 
paidoned — the  debt  of  their  sin  has  been  paid  by  their 
great  Surety — it  has  been  merged  in  the  cleansing  foun- 
tain of  his  blood.  Through  death  He  has  destroyed 
death,  and  him  that  has  the  power  of  death.  To  them 
"the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin,"  and  hence  the  pains 
.and  anguish  of  Spiritual  death,  they  can:  .lure;  but 
must  be  blessed.  Their  iniquities  are  forgiven  and 
their  sins  are  covered;  and  hence  are  blessed. 
Xor  is  this  act  of  pardon  re  vocal  here  par- 
don has  been  issued,  as  an  act  of .  mc  -.  creignty.  it 
might  be  difficult  to  shew  that  it  could  not  be  recalled 
by  a  similar  act.  But  the  pardon  of  Go  .  3  people  re- 
sults from  a  complete  satisfaction  having  been  rendered — 
so  complete,  that  He  said,  "  it  is  finished?"  and  this, 
too,  in  execution  of  a  covenant  enga;  .  Thus  is 
effectually  precluded  the  recall  of  the  pardon.  The  Fa- 
ther stipulated  to  release  the  people  of  God  from  the 
curse,  provided  the  Son  would  meet  the  claims  of  jus- 
tice against  them.  The  Son  complied  with  his  Father's 
will — Lo  !   I  come  :     He   lived   in   sorrow — he  died  in 


ARE  SAFE  FOREVER.  313 

agony — he  drank  the  bitter  cup — his  soul  was  exceed- 
ing sorrowful  even  until  death — therefore  shall  he  see 
his  seed — he  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  shall 
be  satisfied.  They  cannot  be  again  brought  under  condem- 
nation. Sooner  shall  the  lightnings  of  omnipotence  shiver 
the  Rock  of  ages.  Sooner  shall  the  sword  of  justice 
cleave  the  helmet  of  the  Almighty.  "They  shall  never 
perish." 

In  like  manner  the  righteousness  of  the  Redeemer 
passes  over  to  his  people.  It  is  theirs  by  his  gift-— but  it 
is  theirs :  it  is  so  reckoned  and  set  down.  They  are 
not  only  treated  as  if  they  were  righteous:  but  they  are 
righteous.  Arrayed  in  white  robes — the  wedding  gar- 
ments of  their  Redeemer's  providing,  they  stand  in  all 
the  perfection  of  beauty.  Before  his  glorious  throne, 
spotless  as  that  throne,  they  stand  adorned  as  a  bride 
prepared  for  her  husband.  This  investment  in  the  right- 
eousness of  God  their  Redeemer,  is  also  a  legal  concern, 
confirmed  by  covenant.  Jesus  obeyed — he  fulfilled  all 
righteousness  for  them,  and  now,  having  bestowed  it 
upon  them,  and  having  given  evidence  of  the  fact,  before 
his  Father's  throne,  He  accounts  them  righteous.  The 
Judge  sees  them  perfect  in  Christ,  and  declares  the  fact: 
and  so  it  shall  stand  forever.  "  For  the  mountains  shall 
depart,  and  the  hills  be  removed ;  but  my  kindness  shall 
not  depart  from  thee,  neither  shall  the  covenant  of  my 
peace  be  removed,  saith  the  Lord  that  hath  mercy  on 
thee."     Isa.  liv.  10. 

2.  So  long  as  the  basis  of  a  legal  decision  remains 
firm,  the  decision  itself  cannot  be  moved.  "It  is  God 
that  justifieth  God's  elect,"  Rom.  viii.  33.  If  his  act  in 
so  doing  is  founded  in  right  principles,  "  who  is  he  that 
condemneth  ?"  Who  will  reverse  his  decision  ?  Where 
is  the  superior  tribunal,  to  which  this  cause  can  be  car- 
ried ?  Who  will  detect  the  errors  that  lie  at  its  founda- 
tion— the  fallacies  which  led  to  the  conclusion  ?  Who 
will  make  it  appear  that  however  once  it  may  have  been 
correct,  and  have  rested  on  a  substantial  basis,  yet  sub- 
sequently the  basis  has  failed  and  the  structure  must 
fall? 

The  foundation  of  man's  pardon  and  justification,  is 
27 


314  THE  JUSTIFIED 

Christ's  death  and  obedience  or  righteousness.  Other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay.  If  this  is  complete  and  per- 
fect in  itself,  then  must  the  building  it  sustains  endure  to 
everlasting  ages.  So  long  as  the  atonement  and  right- 
eousness of  our  divine  Surety  are  perfect,  so  long  his 
people  shall  abide  under  the  shadow  of  this  great  rock  in 
a  weary  land.  So  long  as  the  justice  and  law  of  God 
are  satisfied  with  what  Jesus  has  suffered  and  done,  so 
long"  his  people  are  safe  under  the  protection  of  his  al- 
mighty arm.  The  possibility,  therefore,  of  any  sinking 
under  condemnation,  supposes  the  possibility  of  an  erro- 
neous judgement  on  the  part  of  God,  or  of  a  falling  off  in 
the  all-sufficiency  and  perfection  of  Christ's  work. 
From  either  alternative  every  sober  mind  must  shrink  ; 
and,  therefore,  the  idea  of  any  justified  man  falling  away 
and  perishing  in  hell,  can  exist  and  be  entertained  as 
true  only  in  minds  confused  and  indistinct  in  their  no- 
tions, relative  to  the  legal  relations  of  men.  Such  an 
idea  can  exist  only  where  man's  acceptance  with  God  is 
deemed  to  be  partly  on  the  foundation  of  his  own  good 
works,  faith  and  penitence.  And  this  truly  we  will  at 
once  concede.  If  man's  acceptance  with  God  be  based 
at  all — even  in  the  least  degree — upon  any  thing  he  has 
done  or  can  do,  then,  and  in  that  case,  we  not  only  con- 
cede that  he  may,  but  assert  that  he  most  infallibly  will, 
fall  away  and  perish  forever.  But  if  this  justification 
rests  solely  on  Christ's  merits,  and  is  a  change  of  his  le- 
gal relations,  this  change  must  be  stable  as  his  own  glo- 
rious throne. 

3.  The  justification  and  pardon  of  God's  elect,  have 
settled  and  established  forever  the  pillars  of  Jehovah's 
throne.  The  moral  government  of  the  universe  is  con- 
firmed. God  has  given  to  his  rational  and  moral  crea- 
tion the  highest  conceivable  evidence  of  the  immutabili- 
ty of  his  own  justice.  Mercy,  it  was  his  purpose  to 
manifest,  for  the  praise  of  his  own  glorious  grace.  But 
the  claims  of  justice  are  first  to  be  heard.  Mercy  is  a 
contingency,  as  to  the  essentials  of  moral  government ; 
not  an  absolute  necessity.  But  justice  is  indispensa- 
ble. "  Justice  and  judgement  are  the  habitation  of  his 
throne."  To  prepare  the  way  for  mercy,  by  the  sacrifice 


ARE   SAFE    FOREVER.  315 

of  justice,  were  to  proffer  a  curse  under  the  guise  of  a 
blessing.  For  if  the  foundations  of  eternal  right  be  bro- 
ken up  :  if  the  principles  of  righteousness  and  justice  be 
violated,  that  sinners  may  escape  punishment,  where  is 
the  assurance  to  the  moral  universe  that  rectitude  and 
justice  shall  hereafter  govern  or  characterise  the  divine 
administration  ?  If  God  may  disregard  the  claims  of 
right  and  justice,  to  lift  a  sinner  up  to  heaven,  may  he 
not  do  the  same  to  thrust  a  saint  down  to  hell  ? 

But  now  the  contrary  of  all  this  has  occurred.  Justice 
is  fulfilled  in  the  death  of  Christ.  Her  sword  she  would 
not  stay,  even  when  the  Son  of  God,  in  tears  and  agony 
and  blood,  cried,  "  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me."  Surely  if  ever  justice  could  have  relaxed  her  claim, 
it  must  have  been  at  this  awful  juncture.  But  no  :  Jesus 
drank  her  bitter  cup.  The  moral  government  of  the  uni- 
verse is  confirmed.  Let  all  the  rational  creation  know 
that  God  is  just.  Let  all  sinful  beings  tremble,  for  God 
is  just.  Let  all  holy  beings  rejoice,  for  God  is  just.  In 
his  government  holy  and  sinless  beings  shall  never  suffer. 
In  his  government  polluted  and  sinful  beings  shall  not  go 
unpunished. 

But,  moreover,  another  voice  sounds  out  from  Calva- 
ry. Justice,  indeed,  triumphs  in  the  agonies  of  cruci- 
fixion ;  but,  then,  she  acquiesces  in  the  truth,  "  it  is  fi- 
nished," and  unbars  the  gates  of  death.  Mercy,  brilliant 
in  the  orient  beams  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  flies 
on  wings  of  love,  proclaiming  "  peace  on  earth,  good 
will  to  men."  Thus,  "  it  became  him  for  whom  are  all 
things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many 
sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  Captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  sufferings."  In  this  precise  character, 
as  Lord  Creator  and  Lord  Governor  of  the  universe,  it 
was  suitable  and  proper  for  God  the  Father  to  save  men 
through  the  sufferings  of  his  own  Son.  These  suffer- 
ings, therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  many  sons 
unto  glory,  are  intimately  connected  with  the  welfare  of 
the  whole  universe.  For  by  them  is  evinced  the  immu- 
tability of  divine  justice,  whilst  through  them  is  display- 
ed his  mercy.  Here,  on  this  little  ball  that  we  inhabit, 
is  enacted  that  wondrous  scene,  which  excites  the  admi- 


316  GOOD  WORKS 

ration  of  all  holy  beings,  and  the  terror  of  all  unholy  be- 
ings. Our  earth's  Aceldama  is  the  grand  arena  of  con- 
flict and  of  blood — the  battle  field,  where  are  decided, 
not  the  fate  of  armies  and  their  kingdoms,  but  the  fate 
of  worlds  unnumbered  in  the  regions  of  space.  The 
stars  of  light  borrow  their  brilliance  from  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness.  Angelic  hosts,  rising  rank  above  rank, 
confirmed  by  what  their  eyes  see  and  their  ears  hear, 
burst  away  to  bear  the  news  to  heaven's  high  court,  and 
spread  the  tidings  from  world  to  world  throughout  the 
vastness  of  Jehovah's  empire. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

ON  GOOD  WORKS THEIR    NECESSITY  AND  TRUE  POSITION. 

Having  shown  that  man  is  justified  by  faith,  without 
the  deeds  of  the  law,  I  propose  to  conclude  this  little 
work  by  pointing  out  the  necessity  and  true  position  of 
good  works. 

SECTION  I. 

The  necessity  of  good  works. 

That  man  should  be  received  into  heaven,  with  an 
unholy  heart,  and  a  hand  that  never  wrought  righteous- 
ness, is  very  far  distant  from  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Bible.  I  have  no  sympathy  with  any  creed 
which  does  not  embrace  good  works  as  indispensable 
to  salvation.  I  have  endeavoured  to  evince  that  every 
sinner  saved  by  grace  is  savedyVow  his  sin, — not  in  his 
sin.  And  though  this  work  professes  not  to  treat  on  the 
doctrine  of  sanctification,  yet  incidentally,  it  has  been 
touched  upon.  Nor  is  it  here  my  design  to  discuss  that 


NECESSARY.  317 

doctrine";  but  merely  to  state  in  few  words  the  evidence 
of  the  position  taken  in  this  section. 

Ths  scriptures  nowhere  proffer  heaven  to  the  indolent, 
and  careless,  and  sinful;  but  only  to  the  holy,  and  attentive 
and  diligent.  They  urge  to  duty.  They  command  us  to 
believe,  to  repent,  to  maintain  good  works  for  necessary 
uses,  to  produce  good  fruit.  They  assure  us  that  every 
tree  which  produces  not  good  fruit  shall  be  cut  down 
and  cast  into  the  fire — that  the  tares  shall  be  gathered 
into  bundles  to  be  burnt.  They  teach  us  "  that  by 
works  a  man  is  justified  and  not  by  faith  only."  James 
ii.  24.  A  dead  faith — a  faith  that  is  unconnected  with 
vital  action  in  the  production  of  good  works,  is  utterly 
vain,  and  the  soul  is  dead  that  has  it.  Works  are  in- 
dispensable to  justification.  There  ought  to  be — there 
can  be  no  dispute  about  this  matter.  All  readers  of  the 
Bible  must  know,  that  God's  children  are  required  to 
be  holy  as  he  is  holy ;  and  "without  holiness  no  man  shall 
see  the  Lord."  "  He  that  fearelh  God  and  worketh 
righteousness,  is  accepted  of  him,"  but  all  the  workers 
of  iniquity  he  knoweth  afar  off,  and  will  say  to  them, 
**  depart  from  me,  all  ye  that  work  iniquity." 

SECTION  II. 

The  true  position  of  good  ivorks. 

Whilst  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  good  works  are 
necessarily  connected  with  salvation,  there  is  neverthe- 
less some  discrepancy  of  opinion,  as  to  their  relative 
position. 

Some  appear  to  suppose  that  good  works,  are  ante- 
cedent to  regeneration,  conversion,  and  faith:  and  more- 
over, in  some  sense,  procuring  causes  of  themselves. 
They  seem  to  speak  as  if  they  believed  the  prayers, 
fastings,  and  sighs,  and  groans,  and  charities,  &c.  &c. 
which  men  sometimes  practice,  have  a  merit  and  an  effi- 
ciency in  themselves.  They  lay  God  under  certain  ob- 
ligations to  bestow  his  Spirit  and  grace.  Their  good- 
ness reacheth  unto  him.  Without  distinctly  avowing  it 
as  their  principle,  that  man's  salvation  is  by  his  own 
27* 


318  GOOD  WORKS. 

righteousness,  they  seem  to  think  so,  by  referring  to 
portions  of  scripture,  which  they  suppose  have  a  lean- 
ing that  way.  Our  Saviour's  direction  to  the  young 
man,  who  wished  to  know  how  he  might  have  life,  they 
misunderstand.  "  If  thou  wilt  have  life,  keep  the  com- 
mandments." Whereas,  a  little  reflection  would  con- 
vince them,  that  this  and  the  direction  to  another,  "  go, 
sell  all  that  thou  hast  and  distribute  to  the  poor,"  have 
the  same  object ;  viz  :  to  convince  men,  that  their  hearts 
are  deceiptful  above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked. 
If  you  are  bent  to  "  do  some  good  thing,  that  you 
may  have  life,"  try  it — see  how  far  you  can  go  in  the 
way  of  holy  obedience  without  my  grace   and   strength. 

Those  who  thus  lean,  are  not  aware  of  the  spotless 
holiness  of  the  divine  law — of  the  deep  depravity  of  their 
own  hearts.  They  rush  on,  resolved  if  they  'per- 
ish, it  shall  not  be  their  fault.  Little  do  they  think,  if 
they  perish  it  will  be  wholly  their  own  fault.  In  their 
sins  they  shall  die,  if  they  live  in  them,  And  the  most 
ruinous  of  them  all,  is  the  sin  of  "  going  about  to  estab- 
lish their  own  righteousness,"  whilst  they  refuse  to  sub- 
mit themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God,  by  faith  in 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 

Where  then  is  their  great  error.  Precisely  here. 
They  misplace  good  works.  They  put  the  effect  for  the 
cause  and  the  cause  for  the  effect.  They  put  bitter  for 
sweet  and  sweet  for  bitter.  They  will  have  the  fruits 
of  righteousness  to  grow,  before  the  tree  is  planted,  or 
before  it  is  engrafted  contrary  to  nature.  When  some 
incident  averts  their  attention  to  eternal  things,  they  put 
themselves  upon  severe  duties — they  attend  religious 
meetings,  they  read,  they  pray,  they  weep,  they  sigh, 
they  groan,  they  reform  and  do  many  very  good  things 
— good  for  their  substance,  though  bad  for  their  origin, 
and  then  think  God  must  have  done  something  in  them, 
or  must  yet  do.  They  feel  that  they  have  done  many 
things — they  have  worked  out  their  own  salvation,  un- 
apprised of  the  truth,  that  unless  God  works  in  us,  we 
work  nothing  to  profit — that  all  our  righteousness  is  as 
filthy  rags. 

Here  then,  is  the  fallacy.     Good  works  are  indispen- 


THEIR  POSITION.  319 

sable  ;  not  as  the  cause  of  the  divine  favours  and  our  ac- 
ceptance ;  but  as  their  effects.  Not  as!  the  antecedents, 
but  as  the  consequents  of  regeneration.  Not  as  the  rea- 
son why  God  ought  to  be  merciful  to  us  ;  but  as  the 
evidence  that  he  has  so  been.  ''First  make  the  tree 
good  and  his  fruit  good  also."  All  men  are  by  nature 
wild  olive  trees  ;  they  bear  not  good  fruit :  consequently, 
the  more  fruit  they  bear,  the  worse  for  themselves. 
Until  the  tree  is  made  good,  its  fruitfulness  is  not  a  bless- 
ing. The  Saviours  plan  is  to  renew  the  heart,  to  regen- 
erate the  soul — to  make  the  tree  good,  first ;  then  the 
fruits  of  holy  living  will  follow,  by  a  necessity  in  the 
nature  of  the  tree.  Thorns  will  not  produce  grapes  ; 
figs  will  not  be  gathered  off  thistles.  No  application  of 
stimulating  nourishment,  no  hot  house  forcing,  can 
change  the  nature  of  the  tree  :  rather  such  applications 
hasten  the  developement  of  its  nature  in  the  display  of 
its  fruit.  No  artificial  excitements  ;  no  machinery  of 
human  devise,  can  ever  produce  holy  action  in  an  unho- 
ly heart,  or  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean.  To 
expect  good  works,  before  the  heart  is  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  to  set  aside  the  entire  gospel  and  to 
build  upon  the  quicksands  of  human  depravity,  the  edi- 
fice of  your  hopes  for  eternity.  These  good  works  you 
must  indeed  have,  but  you  must  have  them  wrought 
in  you  by  the  good  Spirit  of  our  God.  Prior  to  re- 
generation all  you  do  is  sinful — your  very  prayers  and 
religious  duties  are  sinful.  What  then  ?  Must  we  cease 
such  efforts  ?  Nay,  but  cease  to  rest  on  them  as  good 
and  able  to  commend  you  to  God.  Look  upon  them 
as  vile  and  polluted,  because  of  their  source  in  a  pol- 
luted heart. 

If  then,  good  works  are  subsequent  to  regeneration, 
which  is  sanctification  begun — if  this  is  their  true  rela- 
tive position — another  enquiry  remains,  viz  :  is  regene- 
ration and  the  cosequent  progressive  holiness, — are 
these  consequents  and  effects  of  Justification  ? 

To  this  I  reply,  they  are  consequents  of  Justification, 
necessarily  flowing  from  it  as  effects  from  their  cause. 
The  evidence  of  this  will  appear,  if  you  bear  in  mind, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the   immediate  operating  agent 


320  THE  JUSTIFIED. 

in  renewing  the  Soul  to  Spiritual  life.  It  is  the  Spirit 
that  quickeneth — that  giveth  life.  Faith,  hope,  charity, 
&c.  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self  same  Spirit. 
Believers  are  changed  from  glory  to  glory  as  by  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord. 

Take  in  connexion  with  this,  another  scriptural  truth; 
the  Spirit  is  sent  to  accomplish  all  his  work,  by  the 
Father,  at  the  instance  of  the  Son.  "I  will  pray  the  Fa- 
ther and  he  will  give  you  another  comforter,  even  the 
Spirit  of  truth."  And  "  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath 
sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  son  into  your  hearts."  And 
"  the  peace  of  God,  which  passeth  all  understanding," 
results  from  the  Spirit's  testimony  in  the  heart. 
"  Therefore,  being  justified  by  Faith,  we  have  peace 
with  God."  This  gift  of  the  Spirit  and  all  his  work, 
are  secured  to  the  sinner  by  the  merits  of  Christ.  If  the 
Rock  had  not  been  smitten,  the  water  had  not  flowed 
forth,  to  the  refreshing  of  God's  heritage.  The  obe- 
dience and  death  of  the  Lord  our  Redeemer,  are  not 
less  intimately  connected  with  his  peoples  justification; 
than  that  justification  is  connected  with  their  sanctifica- 
tion. 

Suffer  me  then,  dear  reader,  before  we  part,  to  press 
upon  your  acceptance,  the  great  gift  of  God,  his  own 
dear  Son.  In  him,  if  you  ever  see  life,  you  must  find 
it.  On  this  Rock  you  must  build,  if  your  building  will 
stand  in  the  day  of  trial.  To  him  flee  as  to  a  strong 
tower.  He  is  the  only  city  of  refuge.  His  blood  alone 
can  cleanse  vour  soul  from  dead  works,  to  serve  the 
living  God.  His  righteousness  alone  can  cover  you  in 
the  day  of  his  glory.  Washed  in  this  blood — arrayed 
in  this  righteousness,  you  shall  stand  before  the  great 
white  throne,  from  the  splendours  of  whose  glory,  the 
heavens  shall  flee  away — you  shall  stand  undismayed, 
and  hearken  to  the  sentence  of  your  justification  from 
the  blessed  lips  of  the  final  Judge.  ''Come  ye  blessed 
of  my  Father,  inherit  the  Kingdom  prepared  for  you 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Surrender  the 
world's  pleasures,  and  the  world's  joys,  and  say  in  the 
full  flowing  of  your  soul  :  "What  things  were  given  to 
me,  those  I  counted  loss  for  Christ.     Yea,  doubtless, 


ARE  SAFE   FOREVER.  311 

and  I  count  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the 
knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus,  my  Lord  :  for  whom  I  have 
suffered  the  loss  of  all  things ;  and  do  count  them  but 
dung,  that  I  may  win  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not 
having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but 
that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Chirst,  the  right- 
eousness WHICH  IS  OF  GOD  BY  FAITH." 

Moyco  rco  ©fu>  Sofa. 


TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED  MORE  OR  LESS, 


Gen.  ii.  16,  17,  p.  47 

Lev.  i.  3,  4,  211 

Deut.  xxvm.  66,  303 

Psa.  xl.  6,  10,  191 

"     lxxxix.  3,  186 

Prov.  tiii.  23,  188 

Isa,  xlii.  6,  191 

"     xlix.  8,  191 

"     lv.  3,  1 86 

Math.  v.  25,  278 

"     xvin.  3,  140 

"     xvin.  3,  288 

"     xix.  14,  140 

"     xx.  28,  223 

Luk.  iv.  13,  199 

Joh.  vi.  4,  168 

"     x.  17,  209 

Acts  xxv.  24,  277 

Rom.  i.  8,  250 

"     v.  12,  21,  127 

"     viii.  26,  27,  34,  277 

"     x.  4,  193 

"     xi.  2,  3,  277 

1  Cor.  ii.  14,  166 

".    xv.  22,  135 


1  Cor.  xv.  22, 
Gal.  hi.  17, 
Col.  i.  6. 

«     i.  28, 
1  Tim.  i.  2,  4,  6, 

"     ii.  1,  4, 

"     n.  4,  6,  10, 

"     iv.  10, 

"  vi.  10, 
Tit.  i.  2,  3, 
Heb.  ii.  9, 


"     vn.  25, 
"     ix.  12, 
"     x.  5, 
"     xi.  35, 

1  Pet.  in.  3, 

2  Pet.  in.  9, 
Jas.  n.  24, 

1  Joh.  ii.  12, 
"     v.  19, 

Rev.  v.  9, 
"     xii.  9, 
"     xiii.  3, 
"     xx.  12, 


261 
187 
250 
261 
252 
277 
257 
246 
255 
187 
259 
277 
224 
191 
224 
251 
258 
317 
247 
250 
224 
251 
251 
278 


AIV  index  of  subjects. 


Ability  and  inability, 

152 

natural  and  moral, 

156 

objections, 

158 

as  taught  in  the  Bible, 

163 

Assurance  of  Faith, 

303 

of  understanding, 

304 

of  hope, 

304 

of  sense, 

305 

Atonement-general  idea, 

196 

limited, 

2,  19,  221 

objections  to  it  refuted, 

227 

God's  design, 

243 

intrinsic  sufficiency, 

241 

indefinite, 

232 

Owen's  dilemma, 

235 

argument  from  term  world, 

247 

all, 

251 

general  gospel  call, 

265 

Call,  general  gospel, 

265 

Christ's  obedience  and  death,  vicarious., 

194 

Covenant,  general  notion, 

42 

of  works,  established, 

45 

violated, 

87 

effects, 

94 

of  grace, 

186,  188 

its  fulfilment, 

192 

Creator  supreme, 

13 

Creature  dependent, 

15 

28 

326  INDEX. 

Depravity,  total,  a  result  of  sin,  101 

Edwards' — view  of  ability  and  inability,  158 

Faith,  as  a  general  principle,  281 
essential  part  of   man's 

nature,  286 

a  duty  of  the  law,  291 

saving,  a  grace  of  the  Spirit,  293 

an  instrument,  299 

appropriation  of,  300 

assurance  of,  303 

Freedom  of  will,  158 

Gospel,  a  remedial  law,  178 
establishes  the  principles  of  the  origi- 
nal, institute,  179,  182 
call,  its  command   general;  its  promi- 
ses particular,  267 

Guilt — defined,  113 

Ignorance — a  result  of  sin,  97,  165 

insuperable    by  man's   power,  165 

Illumination  proves  mental  inability,  169 

Inability  proved  by  the  miracles  of  healing,  171 

Infants  are  saved,  139 

Intercession,  its  nature,  275,  277 

its  grounds,  a  claim  of  right,       279,  281, 

limited  to  God's  redeemed,  281 

Imputation,  107,  116 

applied  in  Justification,  308 

Justice — commutative,  distributive,  &c,  erro- 
neous distinction,  237 
Justification,  and  related  terms  defined,  72 
requisites  to  Adam's,  82 

Law    and    Gospel    not    antagonist    to  each 

other,  268 

Man's  primeval  state,  37 


INDEX.  327 

Moral  government  in  general,  13 

obligation  rests  on  the  will  of  God,  16 
agency,  requisites  to                                    21 — 36 

sense  requisite,  37 

Original  sin,  vdefined,  104 

proved  from  the  case  of  infants,  139 

Perseverance  of  saints,  secured,  311 

Probation,  must  be  limited,  84 

Propitiation,  248 

Prayer  of  faith  always  heard,  284 

Punishment — future,  intense  and  eternal,  228 

Ransom,  part  of  Redemption,  223 

Redemption,  221 
Reconciliation,  196,  217 
Remedial  law,                                                        179,   184 

Repentance,  a  contingency  in  morals,  181 

Representation,  doctrine  in  general,  50 

Representative  character  of  Adam,  58 

not    dependent    on    his 

physical  constitution,  64 

Righteousness,  term  defined,  78 

Sacrament  of  supper,  illustration  of  appropria- 
tion of  faith,  301 

Self-love,  29 

Soul,  not  subservient  to  the   body,   but  vice 

versa,  66 

Substitution,  legal  204 

essential  to  atonement,  208 
proved  by  typical  sacri- 
fices, 211 
only    can     account    for 
Christ's  death,  212 
consequences  of  it,  215 

Sufferings  of  Christ,  vicarious,  200 

their  magnitude,  203 

by  God's  appointment,  203 

were  right  or  wrong,  204 


328  INDEX. 

Unbelief,  an  acquired  habit,  287 

Union  with  Christ,  307 

Universalists'    objection    to    particular    atone- 
ment, 227 
doctrine  palatable  to  the 
carnal  heart,                               228 
makes  hell    a  place  for 
conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation,                                          230 
Will,  inabilility  not  predicable  of  172 
of  God,  basis  of  moral  obligation  and 
rule  of  duty,                                                   16,   19 
Works,  good,  their  necessity  and  true  posi- 
tion,                                           316 


\   3 


